TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 135 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879468550; 14937-6_0135 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 135 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879468550?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 101 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879468406; 14937-6_0101 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 101 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879468406?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 55 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879468394; 14937-6_0055 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 55 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879468394?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 54 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879468387; 14937-6_0054 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 54 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879468387?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 86 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879468380; 14937-6_0086 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 86 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879468380?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 81 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879468292; 14937-6_0081 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 81 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879468292?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 77 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879468270; 14937-6_0077 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 77 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879468270?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 76 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879468249; 14937-6_0076 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 76 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879468249?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 73 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879468156; 14937-6_0073 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 73 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879468156?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 132 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467693; 14937-6_0132 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 132 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467693?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 100 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467053; 14937-6_0100 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 100 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467053?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 99 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467052; 14937-6_0099 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 99 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467052?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 123 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467050; 14937-6_0123 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 123 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467050?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 87 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467049; 14937-6_0087 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 87 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467049?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 121 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467048; 14937-6_0121 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 121 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467048?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 83 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467047; 14937-6_0083 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 83 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467047?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 111 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467046; 14937-6_0111 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 111 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467046?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 110 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467045; 14937-6_0110 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 110 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467045?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 127 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467042; 14937-6_0127 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 127 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467042?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 126 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467041; 14937-6_0126 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 126 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467041?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 131 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467040; 14937-6_0131 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 131 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467040?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 122 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467039; 14937-6_0122 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 122 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467039?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 97 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467037; 14937-6_0097 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 97 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467037?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 112 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467036; 14937-6_0112 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 112 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467036?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 92 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467035; 14937-6_0092 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 92 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467035?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 56 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467032; 14937-6_0056 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 56 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467032?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 85 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467029; 14937-6_0085 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 85 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467029?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 84 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467028; 14937-6_0084 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 84 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467028?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 89 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467027; 14937-6_0089 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 89 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467027?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 125 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467025; 14937-6_0125 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 125 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467025?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 75 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467024; 14937-6_0075 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 75 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467024?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 120 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467023; 14937-6_0120 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 120 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467023?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 130 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467020; 14937-6_0130 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 130 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467020?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 114 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467019; 14937-6_0114 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 114 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467019?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 124 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467013; 14937-6_0124 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 124 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467013?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 102 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467006; 14937-6_0102 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 102 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467006?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 106 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467005; 14937-6_0106 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 106 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467005?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 116 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467003; 14937-6_0116 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 116 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467003?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 91 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467001; 14937-6_0091 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 91 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467001?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 93 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879467000; 14937-6_0093 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 93 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879467000?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 108 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466997; 14937-6_0108 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 108 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466997?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 78 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466996; 14937-6_0078 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 78 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466996?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 103 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466995; 14937-6_0103 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 103 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466995?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 128 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466994; 14937-6_0128 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 128 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466994?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 119 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466993; 14937-6_0119 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 119 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466993?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 109 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466990; 14937-6_0109 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 109 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466990?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 68 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466987; 14937-6_0068 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 68 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466987?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 66 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466986; 14937-6_0066 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 66 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466986?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 96 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466984; 14937-6_0096 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 96 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466984?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 65 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466983; 14937-6_0065 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 65 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466983?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 94 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466982; 14937-6_0094 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 94 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466982?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 62 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466981; 14937-6_0062 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 62 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466981?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 70 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466980; 14937-6_0070 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 70 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466980?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 63 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466977; 14937-6_0063 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 63 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466977?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 60 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466976; 14937-6_0060 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 60 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466976?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 59 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466975; 14937-6_0059 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 59 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466975?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 90 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466974; 14937-6_0090 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 90 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466974?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 57 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466962; 14937-6_0057 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 57 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466962?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 51 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466960; 14937-6_0051 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 51 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466960?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 49 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466958; 14937-6_0049 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 49 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466958?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 41 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466957; 14937-6_0041 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 41 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466957?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 38 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466956; 14937-6_0038 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 38 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466956?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 30 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466955; 14937-6_0030 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 30 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466955?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 23 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466954; 14937-6_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 23 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466954?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 22 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466953; 14937-6_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 22 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466953?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 33 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466951; 14937-6_0033 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 33 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466951?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 28 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466949; 14937-6_0028 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 28 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466949?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 42 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466948; 14937-6_0042 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 42 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466948?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 158 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466947; 14937-6_0158 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 158 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466947?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 27 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466946; 14937-6_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 27 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466946?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 157 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466945; 14937-6_0157 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 157 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466945?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 37 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466944; 14937-6_0037 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 37 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466944?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 26 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466943; 14937-6_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 26 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466943?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 220 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466942; 14937-6_0220 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 220 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466942?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 36 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466941; 14937-6_0036 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 36 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466941?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 213 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466939; 14937-6_0213 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 213 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466939?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 32 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466938; 14937-6_0032 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 32 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466938?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 20 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466937; 14937-6_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 20 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466937?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 209 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466935; 14937-6_0209 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 209 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466935?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 25 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466933; 14937-6_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 25 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466933?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 167 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466932; 14937-6_0167 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 167 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466932?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 168 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466931; 14937-6_0168 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 168 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466931?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 48 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466929; 14937-6_0048 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 48 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466929?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 160 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466927; 14937-6_0160 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 160 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466927?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 193 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466924; 14937-6_0193 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 193 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466924?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 214 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466922; 14937-6_0214 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 214 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466922?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 221 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466921; 14937-6_0221 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 221 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466921?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 165 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466920; 14937-6_0165 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 165 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466920?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 190 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466919; 14937-6_0190 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 190 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466919?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 212 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466917; 14937-6_0212 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 212 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466917?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 219 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466916; 14937-6_0219 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 219 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466916?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 162 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466915; 14937-6_0162 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 162 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466915?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 208 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466914; 14937-6_0208 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 208 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466914?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 195 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466913; 14937-6_0195 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 195 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466913?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 47 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466911; 14937-6_0047 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 47 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466911?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 43 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466910; 14937-6_0043 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 43 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466910?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 46 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466908; 14937-6_0046 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 46 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466908?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 192 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466907; 14937-6_0192 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 192 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466907?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 31 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466906; 14937-6_0031 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 31 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466906?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 205 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466905; 14937-6_0205 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 205 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466905?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 215 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466904; 14937-6_0215 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 215 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466904?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 191 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466903; 14937-6_0191 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 191 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466903?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 204 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466902; 14937-6_0204 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 204 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466902?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 210 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466900; 14937-6_0210 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 210 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466900?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 218 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466899; 14937-6_0218 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 218 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466899?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 198 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466898; 14937-6_0198 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 198 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466898?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 45 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466897; 14937-6_0045 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 45 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466897?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 217 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466896; 14937-6_0217 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 217 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466896?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 203 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466895; 14937-6_0203 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 203 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466895?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 197 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466894; 14937-6_0197 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 197 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466894?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 207 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466892; 14937-6_0207 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 207 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466892?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 216 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466890; 14937-6_0216 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 216 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466890?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 29 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466888; 14937-6_0029 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 29 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466888?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_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=Social+Cognitive+and+Affective+Neuroscience&rft.atitle=Distinct+but+overlapping+neural+networks+subserve+depression+and+insecure+attachment&rft.au=Galynker%2C+Igor+I.%3BYaseen%2C+Zimri+S.%3BKatz%2C+Curren%3BZhang%2C+Xian%3BJennings-Donovan%2C+Gillian%3BDashnaw%2C+Stephen%3BHirsch%2C+Joy%3BMayberg%2C+Helen%3BCohen%2C+Lisa+J.%3BWinston%2C+Arnold&rft.aulast=Galynker&rft.aufirst=Igor&rft.date=2012-12-01&rft.volume=7&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=896&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Social+Cognitive+and+Affective+Neuroscience&rft.issn=17495016&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093%2Fscan%2Fnsr074 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 170 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466887; 14937-6_0170 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 170 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466887?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=Igor&rft.date=2012-12-01&rft.volume=7&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=896&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Social+Cognitive+and+Affective+Neuroscience&rft.issn=17495016&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093%2Fscan%2Fnsr074 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 169 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466886; 14937-6_0169 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 169 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466886?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 40 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466885; 14937-6_0040 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 40 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466885?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 39 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466884; 14937-6_0039 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 39 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466884?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 206 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466883; 14937-6_0206 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 206 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466883?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 201 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466882; 14937-6_0201 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 201 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466882?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 200 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466880; 14937-6_0200 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 200 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466880?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 18 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466879; 14937-6_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 18 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466879?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 17 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466878; 14937-6_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 17 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466878?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 16 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466877; 14937-6_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 16 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466877?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 156 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466876; 14937-6_0156 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 156 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466876?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 15 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466875; 14937-6_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466875?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 4 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466873; 14937-6_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466873?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 154 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466871; 14937-6_0154 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 154 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466871?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 188 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466858; 14937-6_0188 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 188 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466858?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 6 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466854; 14937-6_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466854?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 153 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466853; 14937-6_0153 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 153 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466853?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 148 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466851; 14937-6_0148 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 148 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466851?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 5 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466850; 14937-6_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466850?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 138 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466849; 14937-6_0138 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 138 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466849?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 141 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466833; 14937-6_0141 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 141 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466833?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 10 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466832; 14937-6_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466832?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 13 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466831; 14937-6_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466831?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 140 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466828; 14937-6_0140 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 140 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466828?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 12 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466827; 14937-6_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466827?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 146 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466826; 14937-6_0146 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 146 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466826?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 187 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466825; 14937-6_0187 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 187 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466825?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 139 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466824; 14937-6_0139 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 139 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466824?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 11 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466823; 14937-6_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466823?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 136 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466821; 14937-6_0136 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 136 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466821?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 9 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466818; 14937-6_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466818?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 150 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466817; 14937-6_0150 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 150 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466817?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 14 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466814; 14937-6_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466814?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 175 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466813; 14937-6_0175 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 175 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466813?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 145 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466812; 14937-6_0145 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 145 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466812?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 149 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466810; 14937-6_0149 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 149 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466810?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 172 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466809; 14937-6_0172 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 172 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466809?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 171 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466802; 14937-6_0171 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 171 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466802?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 180 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466799; 14937-6_0180 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 180 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466799?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 183 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466797; 14937-6_0183 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 183 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466797?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 179 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466796; 14937-6_0179 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 179 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466796?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 177 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466794; 14937-6_0177 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 177 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466794?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 176 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466793; 14937-6_0176 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 176 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466793?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. [Part 173 of 225] T2 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 879466792; 14937-6_0173 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROW) that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in East-central Nevada is proposed. The SNWA long-term water demands are projected to increase over 30 percent between 2010 and 2035, to 739,000 acre feet per year (afy), with additional increases to more than 860,000 afy by 2060. The Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project facilities would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, pumping stations, substation, pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located in northern Clark County, Lincoln County, and southeastern White Pine County, primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. The project would convey up to 155,000 afy of water, with up to 122,000 afy of groundwater developed by SNWA and the remaining capacity provided for Lincoln County. The SNWA portion includes pending water rights applications in Spring, Cave, Delamar, Dry Lake and Snake valleys. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Specifics of associated future water development currently are unknown and, therefore, are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) the 263-mile LCCRDA ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternative E. A construction water supply well would be needed POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the project as proposed would entail clearing of 12,303 acres, including 2,584 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 11,303 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species, including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 14 to 23 grazing allotments. Under the proposed action, 146 square miles of area would have potential ground surface subsidence of greater than five feet. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed action, and alternatives A, B, C, and E would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110176, Volume 1A--746 pages, Volume 1B--808 pages, June 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 173 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879466792?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ST. LUCIE COUNTY SOUTH BEACH AND DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 9 of 13] T2 - ST. LUCIE COUNTY SOUTH BEACH AND DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 876254896; 14931-0_0009 AB - PURPOSE: A beach nourishment project within the southernmost 5.2 miles of Atlantic shoreline in St. Lucie County on Floridas east coast is proposed. The countys coastline consists primarily of 21.5 miles of South Hutchinson and North Hutchinson Island, elongated barrier islands generally a mile or less wide separated by Ft. Pierce Inlet. The Indian River Lagoon, Ft. Pierce Inlet, and St. Lucie Inlet separate South Hutchinson Island from Floridas mainland. The beaches south of Fort Pierce Inlet have sustained long-term erosion due to the downdrift effects of the inlet and damaging storms have caused significant sand losses along county beaches since at least 1972. Net erosion rates of 13.1 feet per year, long-term erosion, hurricanes, and emergency fill efforts have left numerous buildings with minimal dune protection. Key issues include project design, the level of hardbottom impact, the level of mitigation, and the impacts that offshore shoal dredging would create. This draft EIS considers seven alternatives in detail: 1) a No Action Alternative; 2) beach fill with no impact to existing hardbottom; 3) beach fill to restore the 1972 beach and dune; 4) beach fill to restore the 1972 dune with a 35-foot berm; 5) beach fill to restore the 1972 dune with a 70-foot berm; 6) south segment beach and dune restoration, north segment dune restoration only; and 7) beach and dune restoration with T-head groins. The alternative preferred by the St. Lucie County Erosion District would fill the beach with sand from an offshore source to restore the 1972 dune with a 35-foot berm extending seaward from the dune toe along the length of the project area. The project would entail placement of 610,000 cubic yards of sand over 3.8 miles of barrier island shoreline to stabilize the beach and restore the dune along the South St. Lucie County beaches. As currently proposed, the 610,000 cubic yards of sand would be dredged from the southeast end of St. Lucie Shoal, approximately three miles offshore of the project area in state waters. Projected renourishment events would require 200,000 cubic yards of fill at 10-year intervals. The borrow area currently identified for project use and additional areas further along St. Lucie Shoal in federal waters could provide sufficient sand for a 50-year project life. Construction would occur between November 1 and May 1 to avoid impacts to nesting marine turtles. After project construction, a mix of native coastal dune pioneer plants would be planted on the restored dune. Mitigation reefs comprised of limestone boulders would be placed in areas of suitable, relatively shallow nearshore waters within the project area. In addition to the offshore shoal, upland mines are considered as a source of beach nourishment material. If sand from upland mines were used, the project would eliminate all in-water activity and pipelines along the beach. Trucks filled at the sand mine would traverse the beach and deposit sand at the necessary location where bulldozers would shape the sand. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would restore a protective beach lost to historical and ongoing erosion. The re-established beaches would: maintain commerce associated with beach recreation; maintain suitable beach habitat for nesting sea turtles, invertebrate species, and shorebirds; and reduce expected storm erosion damages to property and infrastructure. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging vessels could encounter sea turtles, manatees, and North Atlantic right whales with possible incidental take of sea turtles. Sand removal from offshore shoal could adversely affect essential fish habitat for coastal pelagic fishes, dolphin and wahoo, and highly migratory species. Dredging and beach placement activities would cause temporary, localized increases in turbidity and sedimentation and could disturb foraging and resting shorebirds. Under the preferred alternative, 1.08 acres of nearshore hardbottom habitat used as foraging habitat by juvenile sea turtles would be buried. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110170, Draft EIS--230 pages, Appendices--562 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Florida KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254896?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY+SOUTH+BEACH+AND+DUNE+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY+SOUTH+BEACH+AND+DUNE+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+ST.+LUCIE+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 - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ST. LUCIE COUNTY SOUTH BEACH AND DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 8 of 13] T2 - ST. LUCIE COUNTY SOUTH BEACH AND DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 876254891; 14931-0_0008 AB - PURPOSE: A beach nourishment project within the southernmost 5.2 miles of Atlantic shoreline in St. Lucie County on Floridas east coast is proposed. The countys coastline consists primarily of 21.5 miles of South Hutchinson and North Hutchinson Island, elongated barrier islands generally a mile or less wide separated by Ft. Pierce Inlet. The Indian River Lagoon, Ft. Pierce Inlet, and St. Lucie Inlet separate South Hutchinson Island from Floridas mainland. The beaches south of Fort Pierce Inlet have sustained long-term erosion due to the downdrift effects of the inlet and damaging storms have caused significant sand losses along county beaches since at least 1972. Net erosion rates of 13.1 feet per year, long-term erosion, hurricanes, and emergency fill efforts have left numerous buildings with minimal dune protection. Key issues include project design, the level of hardbottom impact, the level of mitigation, and the impacts that offshore shoal dredging would create. This draft EIS considers seven alternatives in detail: 1) a No Action Alternative; 2) beach fill with no impact to existing hardbottom; 3) beach fill to restore the 1972 beach and dune; 4) beach fill to restore the 1972 dune with a 35-foot berm; 5) beach fill to restore the 1972 dune with a 70-foot berm; 6) south segment beach and dune restoration, north segment dune restoration only; and 7) beach and dune restoration with T-head groins. The alternative preferred by the St. Lucie County Erosion District would fill the beach with sand from an offshore source to restore the 1972 dune with a 35-foot berm extending seaward from the dune toe along the length of the project area. The project would entail placement of 610,000 cubic yards of sand over 3.8 miles of barrier island shoreline to stabilize the beach and restore the dune along the South St. Lucie County beaches. As currently proposed, the 610,000 cubic yards of sand would be dredged from the southeast end of St. Lucie Shoal, approximately three miles offshore of the project area in state waters. Projected renourishment events would require 200,000 cubic yards of fill at 10-year intervals. The borrow area currently identified for project use and additional areas further along St. Lucie Shoal in federal waters could provide sufficient sand for a 50-year project life. Construction would occur between November 1 and May 1 to avoid impacts to nesting marine turtles. After project construction, a mix of native coastal dune pioneer plants would be planted on the restored dune. Mitigation reefs comprised of limestone boulders would be placed in areas of suitable, relatively shallow nearshore waters within the project area. In addition to the offshore shoal, upland mines are considered as a source of beach nourishment material. If sand from upland mines were used, the project would eliminate all in-water activity and pipelines along the beach. Trucks filled at the sand mine would traverse the beach and deposit sand at the necessary location where bulldozers would shape the sand. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would restore a protective beach lost to historical and ongoing erosion. The re-established beaches would: maintain commerce associated with beach recreation; maintain suitable beach habitat for nesting sea turtles, invertebrate species, and shorebirds; and reduce expected storm erosion damages to property and infrastructure. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging vessels could encounter sea turtles, manatees, and North Atlantic right whales with possible incidental take of sea turtles. Sand removal from offshore shoal could adversely affect essential fish habitat for coastal pelagic fishes, dolphin and wahoo, and highly migratory species. Dredging and beach placement activities would cause temporary, localized increases in turbidity and sedimentation and could disturb foraging and resting shorebirds. Under the preferred alternative, 1.08 acres of nearshore hardbottom habitat used as foraging habitat by juvenile sea turtles would be buried. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110170, Draft EIS--230 pages, Appendices--562 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Florida KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254891?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY+SOUTH+BEACH+AND+DUNE+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY+SOUTH+BEACH+AND+DUNE+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+ST.+LUCIE+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 - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ST. LUCIE COUNTY SOUTH BEACH AND DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 7 of 13] T2 - ST. LUCIE COUNTY SOUTH BEACH AND DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 876254884; 14931-0_0007 AB - PURPOSE: A beach nourishment project within the southernmost 5.2 miles of Atlantic shoreline in St. Lucie County on Floridas east coast is proposed. The countys coastline consists primarily of 21.5 miles of South Hutchinson and North Hutchinson Island, elongated barrier islands generally a mile or less wide separated by Ft. Pierce Inlet. The Indian River Lagoon, Ft. Pierce Inlet, and St. Lucie Inlet separate South Hutchinson Island from Floridas mainland. The beaches south of Fort Pierce Inlet have sustained long-term erosion due to the downdrift effects of the inlet and damaging storms have caused significant sand losses along county beaches since at least 1972. Net erosion rates of 13.1 feet per year, long-term erosion, hurricanes, and emergency fill efforts have left numerous buildings with minimal dune protection. Key issues include project design, the level of hardbottom impact, the level of mitigation, and the impacts that offshore shoal dredging would create. This draft EIS considers seven alternatives in detail: 1) a No Action Alternative; 2) beach fill with no impact to existing hardbottom; 3) beach fill to restore the 1972 beach and dune; 4) beach fill to restore the 1972 dune with a 35-foot berm; 5) beach fill to restore the 1972 dune with a 70-foot berm; 6) south segment beach and dune restoration, north segment dune restoration only; and 7) beach and dune restoration with T-head groins. The alternative preferred by the St. Lucie County Erosion District would fill the beach with sand from an offshore source to restore the 1972 dune with a 35-foot berm extending seaward from the dune toe along the length of the project area. The project would entail placement of 610,000 cubic yards of sand over 3.8 miles of barrier island shoreline to stabilize the beach and restore the dune along the South St. Lucie County beaches. As currently proposed, the 610,000 cubic yards of sand would be dredged from the southeast end of St. Lucie Shoal, approximately three miles offshore of the project area in state waters. Projected renourishment events would require 200,000 cubic yards of fill at 10-year intervals. The borrow area currently identified for project use and additional areas further along St. Lucie Shoal in federal waters could provide sufficient sand for a 50-year project life. Construction would occur between November 1 and May 1 to avoid impacts to nesting marine turtles. After project construction, a mix of native coastal dune pioneer plants would be planted on the restored dune. Mitigation reefs comprised of limestone boulders would be placed in areas of suitable, relatively shallow nearshore waters within the project area. In addition to the offshore shoal, upland mines are considered as a source of beach nourishment material. If sand from upland mines were used, the project would eliminate all in-water activity and pipelines along the beach. Trucks filled at the sand mine would traverse the beach and deposit sand at the necessary location where bulldozers would shape the sand. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would restore a protective beach lost to historical and ongoing erosion. The re-established beaches would: maintain commerce associated with beach recreation; maintain suitable beach habitat for nesting sea turtles, invertebrate species, and shorebirds; and reduce expected storm erosion damages to property and infrastructure. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging vessels could encounter sea turtles, manatees, and North Atlantic right whales with possible incidental take of sea turtles. Sand removal from offshore shoal could adversely affect essential fish habitat for coastal pelagic fishes, dolphin and wahoo, and highly migratory species. Dredging and beach placement activities would cause temporary, localized increases in turbidity and sedimentation and could disturb foraging and resting shorebirds. Under the preferred alternative, 1.08 acres of nearshore hardbottom habitat used as foraging habitat by juvenile sea turtles would be buried. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110170, Draft EIS--230 pages, Appendices--562 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Florida KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254884?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY+SOUTH+BEACH+AND+DUNE+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY+SOUTH+BEACH+AND+DUNE+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+ST.+LUCIE+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 - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ST. LUCIE COUNTY SOUTH BEACH AND DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 6 of 13] T2 - ST. LUCIE COUNTY SOUTH BEACH AND DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 876254882; 14931-0_0006 AB - PURPOSE: A beach nourishment project within the southernmost 5.2 miles of Atlantic shoreline in St. Lucie County on Floridas east coast is proposed. The countys coastline consists primarily of 21.5 miles of South Hutchinson and North Hutchinson Island, elongated barrier islands generally a mile or less wide separated by Ft. Pierce Inlet. The Indian River Lagoon, Ft. Pierce Inlet, and St. Lucie Inlet separate South Hutchinson Island from Floridas mainland. The beaches south of Fort Pierce Inlet have sustained long-term erosion due to the downdrift effects of the inlet and damaging storms have caused significant sand losses along county beaches since at least 1972. Net erosion rates of 13.1 feet per year, long-term erosion, hurricanes, and emergency fill efforts have left numerous buildings with minimal dune protection. Key issues include project design, the level of hardbottom impact, the level of mitigation, and the impacts that offshore shoal dredging would create. This draft EIS considers seven alternatives in detail: 1) a No Action Alternative; 2) beach fill with no impact to existing hardbottom; 3) beach fill to restore the 1972 beach and dune; 4) beach fill to restore the 1972 dune with a 35-foot berm; 5) beach fill to restore the 1972 dune with a 70-foot berm; 6) south segment beach and dune restoration, north segment dune restoration only; and 7) beach and dune restoration with T-head groins. The alternative preferred by the St. Lucie County Erosion District would fill the beach with sand from an offshore source to restore the 1972 dune with a 35-foot berm extending seaward from the dune toe along the length of the project area. The project would entail placement of 610,000 cubic yards of sand over 3.8 miles of barrier island shoreline to stabilize the beach and restore the dune along the South St. Lucie County beaches. As currently proposed, the 610,000 cubic yards of sand would be dredged from the southeast end of St. Lucie Shoal, approximately three miles offshore of the project area in state waters. Projected renourishment events would require 200,000 cubic yards of fill at 10-year intervals. The borrow area currently identified for project use and additional areas further along St. Lucie Shoal in federal waters could provide sufficient sand for a 50-year project life. Construction would occur between November 1 and May 1 to avoid impacts to nesting marine turtles. After project construction, a mix of native coastal dune pioneer plants would be planted on the restored dune. Mitigation reefs comprised of limestone boulders would be placed in areas of suitable, relatively shallow nearshore waters within the project area. In addition to the offshore shoal, upland mines are considered as a source of beach nourishment material. If sand from upland mines were used, the project would eliminate all in-water activity and pipelines along the beach. Trucks filled at the sand mine would traverse the beach and deposit sand at the necessary location where bulldozers would shape the sand. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would restore a protective beach lost to historical and ongoing erosion. The re-established beaches would: maintain commerce associated with beach recreation; maintain suitable beach habitat for nesting sea turtles, invertebrate species, and shorebirds; and reduce expected storm erosion damages to property and infrastructure. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging vessels could encounter sea turtles, manatees, and North Atlantic right whales with possible incidental take of sea turtles. Sand removal from offshore shoal could adversely affect essential fish habitat for coastal pelagic fishes, dolphin and wahoo, and highly migratory species. Dredging and beach placement activities would cause temporary, localized increases in turbidity and sedimentation and could disturb foraging and resting shorebirds. Under the preferred alternative, 1.08 acres of nearshore hardbottom habitat used as foraging habitat by juvenile sea turtles would be buried. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110170, Draft EIS--230 pages, Appendices--562 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Florida KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254882?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY+SOUTH+BEACH+AND+DUNE+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY+SOUTH+BEACH+AND+DUNE+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+ST.+LUCIE+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 - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ST. LUCIE COUNTY SOUTH BEACH AND DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 5 of 13] T2 - ST. LUCIE COUNTY SOUTH BEACH AND DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 876254874; 14931-0_0005 AB - PURPOSE: A beach nourishment project within the southernmost 5.2 miles of Atlantic shoreline in St. Lucie County on Floridas east coast is proposed. The countys coastline consists primarily of 21.5 miles of South Hutchinson and North Hutchinson Island, elongated barrier islands generally a mile or less wide separated by Ft. Pierce Inlet. The Indian River Lagoon, Ft. Pierce Inlet, and St. Lucie Inlet separate South Hutchinson Island from Floridas mainland. The beaches south of Fort Pierce Inlet have sustained long-term erosion due to the downdrift effects of the inlet and damaging storms have caused significant sand losses along county beaches since at least 1972. Net erosion rates of 13.1 feet per year, long-term erosion, hurricanes, and emergency fill efforts have left numerous buildings with minimal dune protection. Key issues include project design, the level of hardbottom impact, the level of mitigation, and the impacts that offshore shoal dredging would create. This draft EIS considers seven alternatives in detail: 1) a No Action Alternative; 2) beach fill with no impact to existing hardbottom; 3) beach fill to restore the 1972 beach and dune; 4) beach fill to restore the 1972 dune with a 35-foot berm; 5) beach fill to restore the 1972 dune with a 70-foot berm; 6) south segment beach and dune restoration, north segment dune restoration only; and 7) beach and dune restoration with T-head groins. The alternative preferred by the St. Lucie County Erosion District would fill the beach with sand from an offshore source to restore the 1972 dune with a 35-foot berm extending seaward from the dune toe along the length of the project area. The project would entail placement of 610,000 cubic yards of sand over 3.8 miles of barrier island shoreline to stabilize the beach and restore the dune along the South St. Lucie County beaches. As currently proposed, the 610,000 cubic yards of sand would be dredged from the southeast end of St. Lucie Shoal, approximately three miles offshore of the project area in state waters. Projected renourishment events would require 200,000 cubic yards of fill at 10-year intervals. The borrow area currently identified for project use and additional areas further along St. Lucie Shoal in federal waters could provide sufficient sand for a 50-year project life. Construction would occur between November 1 and May 1 to avoid impacts to nesting marine turtles. After project construction, a mix of native coastal dune pioneer plants would be planted on the restored dune. Mitigation reefs comprised of limestone boulders would be placed in areas of suitable, relatively shallow nearshore waters within the project area. In addition to the offshore shoal, upland mines are considered as a source of beach nourishment material. If sand from upland mines were used, the project would eliminate all in-water activity and pipelines along the beach. Trucks filled at the sand mine would traverse the beach and deposit sand at the necessary location where bulldozers would shape the sand. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would restore a protective beach lost to historical and ongoing erosion. The re-established beaches would: maintain commerce associated with beach recreation; maintain suitable beach habitat for nesting sea turtles, invertebrate species, and shorebirds; and reduce expected storm erosion damages to property and infrastructure. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging vessels could encounter sea turtles, manatees, and North Atlantic right whales with possible incidental take of sea turtles. Sand removal from offshore shoal could adversely affect essential fish habitat for coastal pelagic fishes, dolphin and wahoo, and highly migratory species. Dredging and beach placement activities would cause temporary, localized increases in turbidity and sedimentation and could disturb foraging and resting shorebirds. Under the preferred alternative, 1.08 acres of nearshore hardbottom habitat used as foraging habitat by juvenile sea turtles would be buried. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110170, Draft EIS--230 pages, Appendices--562 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Florida KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254874?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY+SOUTH+BEACH+AND+DUNE+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY+SOUTH+BEACH+AND+DUNE+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+ST.+LUCIE+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 - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ST. LUCIE COUNTY SOUTH BEACH AND DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 4 of 13] T2 - ST. LUCIE COUNTY SOUTH BEACH AND DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 876254867; 14931-0_0004 AB - PURPOSE: A beach nourishment project within the southernmost 5.2 miles of Atlantic shoreline in St. Lucie County on Floridas east coast is proposed. The countys coastline consists primarily of 21.5 miles of South Hutchinson and North Hutchinson Island, elongated barrier islands generally a mile or less wide separated by Ft. Pierce Inlet. The Indian River Lagoon, Ft. Pierce Inlet, and St. Lucie Inlet separate South Hutchinson Island from Floridas mainland. The beaches south of Fort Pierce Inlet have sustained long-term erosion due to the downdrift effects of the inlet and damaging storms have caused significant sand losses along county beaches since at least 1972. Net erosion rates of 13.1 feet per year, long-term erosion, hurricanes, and emergency fill efforts have left numerous buildings with minimal dune protection. Key issues include project design, the level of hardbottom impact, the level of mitigation, and the impacts that offshore shoal dredging would create. This draft EIS considers seven alternatives in detail: 1) a No Action Alternative; 2) beach fill with no impact to existing hardbottom; 3) beach fill to restore the 1972 beach and dune; 4) beach fill to restore the 1972 dune with a 35-foot berm; 5) beach fill to restore the 1972 dune with a 70-foot berm; 6) south segment beach and dune restoration, north segment dune restoration only; and 7) beach and dune restoration with T-head groins. The alternative preferred by the St. Lucie County Erosion District would fill the beach with sand from an offshore source to restore the 1972 dune with a 35-foot berm extending seaward from the dune toe along the length of the project area. The project would entail placement of 610,000 cubic yards of sand over 3.8 miles of barrier island shoreline to stabilize the beach and restore the dune along the South St. Lucie County beaches. As currently proposed, the 610,000 cubic yards of sand would be dredged from the southeast end of St. Lucie Shoal, approximately three miles offshore of the project area in state waters. Projected renourishment events would require 200,000 cubic yards of fill at 10-year intervals. The borrow area currently identified for project use and additional areas further along St. Lucie Shoal in federal waters could provide sufficient sand for a 50-year project life. Construction would occur between November 1 and May 1 to avoid impacts to nesting marine turtles. After project construction, a mix of native coastal dune pioneer plants would be planted on the restored dune. Mitigation reefs comprised of limestone boulders would be placed in areas of suitable, relatively shallow nearshore waters within the project area. In addition to the offshore shoal, upland mines are considered as a source of beach nourishment material. If sand from upland mines were used, the project would eliminate all in-water activity and pipelines along the beach. Trucks filled at the sand mine would traverse the beach and deposit sand at the necessary location where bulldozers would shape the sand. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would restore a protective beach lost to historical and ongoing erosion. The re-established beaches would: maintain commerce associated with beach recreation; maintain suitable beach habitat for nesting sea turtles, invertebrate species, and shorebirds; and reduce expected storm erosion damages to property and infrastructure. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging vessels could encounter sea turtles, manatees, and North Atlantic right whales with possible incidental take of sea turtles. Sand removal from offshore shoal could adversely affect essential fish habitat for coastal pelagic fishes, dolphin and wahoo, and highly migratory species. Dredging and beach placement activities would cause temporary, localized increases in turbidity and sedimentation and could disturb foraging and resting shorebirds. Under the preferred alternative, 1.08 acres of nearshore hardbottom habitat used as foraging habitat by juvenile sea turtles would be buried. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110170, Draft EIS--230 pages, Appendices--562 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Florida KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254867?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY+SOUTH+BEACH+AND+DUNE+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY+SOUTH+BEACH+AND+DUNE+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+ST.+LUCIE+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 - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ST. LUCIE COUNTY SOUTH BEACH AND DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 3 of 13] T2 - ST. LUCIE COUNTY SOUTH BEACH AND DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 876254861; 14931-0_0003 AB - PURPOSE: A beach nourishment project within the southernmost 5.2 miles of Atlantic shoreline in St. Lucie County on Floridas east coast is proposed. The countys coastline consists primarily of 21.5 miles of South Hutchinson and North Hutchinson Island, elongated barrier islands generally a mile or less wide separated by Ft. Pierce Inlet. The Indian River Lagoon, Ft. Pierce Inlet, and St. Lucie Inlet separate South Hutchinson Island from Floridas mainland. The beaches south of Fort Pierce Inlet have sustained long-term erosion due to the downdrift effects of the inlet and damaging storms have caused significant sand losses along county beaches since at least 1972. Net erosion rates of 13.1 feet per year, long-term erosion, hurricanes, and emergency fill efforts have left numerous buildings with minimal dune protection. Key issues include project design, the level of hardbottom impact, the level of mitigation, and the impacts that offshore shoal dredging would create. This draft EIS considers seven alternatives in detail: 1) a No Action Alternative; 2) beach fill with no impact to existing hardbottom; 3) beach fill to restore the 1972 beach and dune; 4) beach fill to restore the 1972 dune with a 35-foot berm; 5) beach fill to restore the 1972 dune with a 70-foot berm; 6) south segment beach and dune restoration, north segment dune restoration only; and 7) beach and dune restoration with T-head groins. The alternative preferred by the St. Lucie County Erosion District would fill the beach with sand from an offshore source to restore the 1972 dune with a 35-foot berm extending seaward from the dune toe along the length of the project area. The project would entail placement of 610,000 cubic yards of sand over 3.8 miles of barrier island shoreline to stabilize the beach and restore the dune along the South St. Lucie County beaches. As currently proposed, the 610,000 cubic yards of sand would be dredged from the southeast end of St. Lucie Shoal, approximately three miles offshore of the project area in state waters. Projected renourishment events would require 200,000 cubic yards of fill at 10-year intervals. The borrow area currently identified for project use and additional areas further along St. Lucie Shoal in federal waters could provide sufficient sand for a 50-year project life. Construction would occur between November 1 and May 1 to avoid impacts to nesting marine turtles. After project construction, a mix of native coastal dune pioneer plants would be planted on the restored dune. Mitigation reefs comprised of limestone boulders would be placed in areas of suitable, relatively shallow nearshore waters within the project area. In addition to the offshore shoal, upland mines are considered as a source of beach nourishment material. If sand from upland mines were used, the project would eliminate all in-water activity and pipelines along the beach. Trucks filled at the sand mine would traverse the beach and deposit sand at the necessary location where bulldozers would shape the sand. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would restore a protective beach lost to historical and ongoing erosion. The re-established beaches would: maintain commerce associated with beach recreation; maintain suitable beach habitat for nesting sea turtles, invertebrate species, and shorebirds; and reduce expected storm erosion damages to property and infrastructure. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging vessels could encounter sea turtles, manatees, and North Atlantic right whales with possible incidental take of sea turtles. Sand removal from offshore shoal could adversely affect essential fish habitat for coastal pelagic fishes, dolphin and wahoo, and highly migratory species. Dredging and beach placement activities would cause temporary, localized increases in turbidity and sedimentation and could disturb foraging and resting shorebirds. Under the preferred alternative, 1.08 acres of nearshore hardbottom habitat used as foraging habitat by juvenile sea turtles would be buried. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110170, Draft EIS--230 pages, Appendices--562 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Florida KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254861?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY+SOUTH+BEACH+AND+DUNE+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY+SOUTH+BEACH+AND+DUNE+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+ST.+LUCIE+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 - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ST. LUCIE COUNTY SOUTH BEACH AND DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 2 of 13] T2 - ST. LUCIE COUNTY SOUTH BEACH AND DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 876254857; 14931-0_0002 AB - PURPOSE: A beach nourishment project within the southernmost 5.2 miles of Atlantic shoreline in St. Lucie County on Floridas east coast is proposed. The countys coastline consists primarily of 21.5 miles of South Hutchinson and North Hutchinson Island, elongated barrier islands generally a mile or less wide separated by Ft. Pierce Inlet. The Indian River Lagoon, Ft. Pierce Inlet, and St. Lucie Inlet separate South Hutchinson Island from Floridas mainland. The beaches south of Fort Pierce Inlet have sustained long-term erosion due to the downdrift effects of the inlet and damaging storms have caused significant sand losses along county beaches since at least 1972. Net erosion rates of 13.1 feet per year, long-term erosion, hurricanes, and emergency fill efforts have left numerous buildings with minimal dune protection. Key issues include project design, the level of hardbottom impact, the level of mitigation, and the impacts that offshore shoal dredging would create. This draft EIS considers seven alternatives in detail: 1) a No Action Alternative; 2) beach fill with no impact to existing hardbottom; 3) beach fill to restore the 1972 beach and dune; 4) beach fill to restore the 1972 dune with a 35-foot berm; 5) beach fill to restore the 1972 dune with a 70-foot berm; 6) south segment beach and dune restoration, north segment dune restoration only; and 7) beach and dune restoration with T-head groins. The alternative preferred by the St. Lucie County Erosion District would fill the beach with sand from an offshore source to restore the 1972 dune with a 35-foot berm extending seaward from the dune toe along the length of the project area. The project would entail placement of 610,000 cubic yards of sand over 3.8 miles of barrier island shoreline to stabilize the beach and restore the dune along the South St. Lucie County beaches. As currently proposed, the 610,000 cubic yards of sand would be dredged from the southeast end of St. Lucie Shoal, approximately three miles offshore of the project area in state waters. Projected renourishment events would require 200,000 cubic yards of fill at 10-year intervals. The borrow area currently identified for project use and additional areas further along St. Lucie Shoal in federal waters could provide sufficient sand for a 50-year project life. Construction would occur between November 1 and May 1 to avoid impacts to nesting marine turtles. After project construction, a mix of native coastal dune pioneer plants would be planted on the restored dune. Mitigation reefs comprised of limestone boulders would be placed in areas of suitable, relatively shallow nearshore waters within the project area. In addition to the offshore shoal, upland mines are considered as a source of beach nourishment material. If sand from upland mines were used, the project would eliminate all in-water activity and pipelines along the beach. Trucks filled at the sand mine would traverse the beach and deposit sand at the necessary location where bulldozers would shape the sand. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would restore a protective beach lost to historical and ongoing erosion. The re-established beaches would: maintain commerce associated with beach recreation; maintain suitable beach habitat for nesting sea turtles, invertebrate species, and shorebirds; and reduce expected storm erosion damages to property and infrastructure. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging vessels could encounter sea turtles, manatees, and North Atlantic right whales with possible incidental take of sea turtles. Sand removal from offshore shoal could adversely affect essential fish habitat for coastal pelagic fishes, dolphin and wahoo, and highly migratory species. Dredging and beach placement activities would cause temporary, localized increases in turbidity and sedimentation and could disturb foraging and resting shorebirds. Under the preferred alternative, 1.08 acres of nearshore hardbottom habitat used as foraging habitat by juvenile sea turtles would be buried. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110170, Draft EIS--230 pages, Appendices--562 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Florida KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254857?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&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 - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ST. LUCIE COUNTY SOUTH BEACH AND DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 1 of 13] T2 - ST. LUCIE COUNTY SOUTH BEACH AND DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 876254852; 14931-0_0001 AB - PURPOSE: A beach nourishment project within the southernmost 5.2 miles of Atlantic shoreline in St. Lucie County on Floridas east coast is proposed. The countys coastline consists primarily of 21.5 miles of South Hutchinson and North Hutchinson Island, elongated barrier islands generally a mile or less wide separated by Ft. Pierce Inlet. The Indian River Lagoon, Ft. Pierce Inlet, and St. Lucie Inlet separate South Hutchinson Island from Floridas mainland. The beaches south of Fort Pierce Inlet have sustained long-term erosion due to the downdrift effects of the inlet and damaging storms have caused significant sand losses along county beaches since at least 1972. Net erosion rates of 13.1 feet per year, long-term erosion, hurricanes, and emergency fill efforts have left numerous buildings with minimal dune protection. Key issues include project design, the level of hardbottom impact, the level of mitigation, and the impacts that offshore shoal dredging would create. This draft EIS considers seven alternatives in detail: 1) a No Action Alternative; 2) beach fill with no impact to existing hardbottom; 3) beach fill to restore the 1972 beach and dune; 4) beach fill to restore the 1972 dune with a 35-foot berm; 5) beach fill to restore the 1972 dune with a 70-foot berm; 6) south segment beach and dune restoration, north segment dune restoration only; and 7) beach and dune restoration with T-head groins. The alternative preferred by the St. Lucie County Erosion District would fill the beach with sand from an offshore source to restore the 1972 dune with a 35-foot berm extending seaward from the dune toe along the length of the project area. The project would entail placement of 610,000 cubic yards of sand over 3.8 miles of barrier island shoreline to stabilize the beach and restore the dune along the South St. Lucie County beaches. As currently proposed, the 610,000 cubic yards of sand would be dredged from the southeast end of St. Lucie Shoal, approximately three miles offshore of the project area in state waters. Projected renourishment events would require 200,000 cubic yards of fill at 10-year intervals. The borrow area currently identified for project use and additional areas further along St. Lucie Shoal in federal waters could provide sufficient sand for a 50-year project life. Construction would occur between November 1 and May 1 to avoid impacts to nesting marine turtles. After project construction, a mix of native coastal dune pioneer plants would be planted on the restored dune. Mitigation reefs comprised of limestone boulders would be placed in areas of suitable, relatively shallow nearshore waters within the project area. In addition to the offshore shoal, upland mines are considered as a source of beach nourishment material. If sand from upland mines were used, the project would eliminate all in-water activity and pipelines along the beach. Trucks filled at the sand mine would traverse the beach and deposit sand at the necessary location where bulldozers would shape the sand. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would restore a protective beach lost to historical and ongoing erosion. The re-established beaches would: maintain commerce associated with beach recreation; maintain suitable beach habitat for nesting sea turtles, invertebrate species, and shorebirds; and reduce expected storm erosion damages to property and infrastructure. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging vessels could encounter sea turtles, manatees, and North Atlantic right whales with possible incidental take of sea turtles. Sand removal from offshore shoal could adversely affect essential fish habitat for coastal pelagic fishes, dolphin and wahoo, and highly migratory species. Dredging and beach placement activities would cause temporary, localized increases in turbidity and sedimentation and could disturb foraging and resting shorebirds. Under the preferred alternative, 1.08 acres of nearshore hardbottom habitat used as foraging habitat by juvenile sea turtles would be buried. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110170, Draft EIS--230 pages, Appendices--562 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Florida KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254852?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY+SOUTH+BEACH+AND+DUNE+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY+SOUTH+BEACH+AND+DUNE+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+ST.+LUCIE+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 - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 26 of 35] T2 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 876254846; 14930-9_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of permanent right-of-way (ROW) to PacifiCorp, doing business as Rocky Mountain Power, for a single-circuit, alternating-current, 345-kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission line extending approximately 160 miles between the Sigurd Substation in Sevier County, Utah to the Red Butte Substation in Washington County, Utah is proposed. The capacity of the southwest Utah electrical system, including the existing 345-kV transmission line (Sigurd to Red Butte No. 1), is expected to be exceeded by 2014. The requested ROW width on federal lands for construction and operation of the Sigurd to Red Butte No. 2 Transmission Line Project is 150 feet and includes portions of the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests. The project would include construction of access roads and expansion of the existing Sigurd Substation on private land to accommodate new substation equipment. Depending on the route selected, the project could cross portions of Sevier, Millard, Beaver, Iron, and Washington counties and may affect the areas around the communities of Sigurd, Richfield, Joseph, Elsinore, Milford, Newcastle, Minersville, Enterprise, Pinto, Central, and Pine Valley. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative routes N1 to N6 in the northern area segment would begin at Sigurd Substation and end south of the Black Mountains. Alternative routes S1 to S6 in the southern area segment would begin south of the Black Mountains and end at Red Butte Substation. Supporting structures would be 80 to 140 feet in height and spacing typically would be between 800 and 1,200 feet. Communications would be provided via optical fibers installed on the transmission lines. The proponent's proposed route is the combination of Alternatives N6 and S5. Alternative route N6 is located 1,500 feet east of the Kern River pipeline and extends 105.5 miles following an existing transmission line over the Mineral Mountains. Alternative route S5, 59 miles in length, turns southwest at Iron Springs, crosses the Antelope Range and State Route 56, and passes the community of Pinto. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transmission line would provide the additional transfer capacity between Sigurd and Red Butte for PacifiCorp to meet its contracted transmission obligations by 2014. Redundancy to existing infrastructure would substantially improve the reliability of electrical service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate emissions, impact soils, and occur across areas associated with geologic hazards, including earthquakes and landslides. Construction of access roads, work areas, and river and stream crossings could result in disturbance of riparian vegetation and deposition of fill into wetlands or waters of the United States. Project-related activities would affect Utah prairie dog, sage grouse, and southwestern willow flycatcher. The proposed routes would traverse mountains and intact landscapes impacting scenic quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110169, Volume I--888 pages, Volume II (Maps)--77 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 26 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-UT-C010-2009-0048-EIS KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Fishlake National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254846?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cedar City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 25 of 35] T2 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 876254841; 14930-9_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of permanent right-of-way (ROW) to PacifiCorp, doing business as Rocky Mountain Power, for a single-circuit, alternating-current, 345-kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission line extending approximately 160 miles between the Sigurd Substation in Sevier County, Utah to the Red Butte Substation in Washington County, Utah is proposed. The capacity of the southwest Utah electrical system, including the existing 345-kV transmission line (Sigurd to Red Butte No. 1), is expected to be exceeded by 2014. The requested ROW width on federal lands for construction and operation of the Sigurd to Red Butte No. 2 Transmission Line Project is 150 feet and includes portions of the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests. The project would include construction of access roads and expansion of the existing Sigurd Substation on private land to accommodate new substation equipment. Depending on the route selected, the project could cross portions of Sevier, Millard, Beaver, Iron, and Washington counties and may affect the areas around the communities of Sigurd, Richfield, Joseph, Elsinore, Milford, Newcastle, Minersville, Enterprise, Pinto, Central, and Pine Valley. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative routes N1 to N6 in the northern area segment would begin at Sigurd Substation and end south of the Black Mountains. Alternative routes S1 to S6 in the southern area segment would begin south of the Black Mountains and end at Red Butte Substation. Supporting structures would be 80 to 140 feet in height and spacing typically would be between 800 and 1,200 feet. Communications would be provided via optical fibers installed on the transmission lines. The proponent's proposed route is the combination of Alternatives N6 and S5. Alternative route N6 is located 1,500 feet east of the Kern River pipeline and extends 105.5 miles following an existing transmission line over the Mineral Mountains. Alternative route S5, 59 miles in length, turns southwest at Iron Springs, crosses the Antelope Range and State Route 56, and passes the community of Pinto. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transmission line would provide the additional transfer capacity between Sigurd and Red Butte for PacifiCorp to meet its contracted transmission obligations by 2014. Redundancy to existing infrastructure would substantially improve the reliability of electrical service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate emissions, impact soils, and occur across areas associated with geologic hazards, including earthquakes and landslides. Construction of access roads, work areas, and river and stream crossings could result in disturbance of riparian vegetation and deposition of fill into wetlands or waters of the United States. Project-related activities would affect Utah prairie dog, sage grouse, and southwestern willow flycatcher. The proposed routes would traverse mountains and intact landscapes impacting scenic quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110169, Volume I--888 pages, Volume II (Maps)--77 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 25 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-UT-C010-2009-0048-EIS KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Fishlake National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254841?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cedar City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 23 of 35] T2 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 876254416; 14930-9_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of permanent right-of-way (ROW) to PacifiCorp, doing business as Rocky Mountain Power, for a single-circuit, alternating-current, 345-kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission line extending approximately 160 miles between the Sigurd Substation in Sevier County, Utah to the Red Butte Substation in Washington County, Utah is proposed. The capacity of the southwest Utah electrical system, including the existing 345-kV transmission line (Sigurd to Red Butte No. 1), is expected to be exceeded by 2014. The requested ROW width on federal lands for construction and operation of the Sigurd to Red Butte No. 2 Transmission Line Project is 150 feet and includes portions of the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests. The project would include construction of access roads and expansion of the existing Sigurd Substation on private land to accommodate new substation equipment. Depending on the route selected, the project could cross portions of Sevier, Millard, Beaver, Iron, and Washington counties and may affect the areas around the communities of Sigurd, Richfield, Joseph, Elsinore, Milford, Newcastle, Minersville, Enterprise, Pinto, Central, and Pine Valley. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative routes N1 to N6 in the northern area segment would begin at Sigurd Substation and end south of the Black Mountains. Alternative routes S1 to S6 in the southern area segment would begin south of the Black Mountains and end at Red Butte Substation. Supporting structures would be 80 to 140 feet in height and spacing typically would be between 800 and 1,200 feet. Communications would be provided via optical fibers installed on the transmission lines. The proponent's proposed route is the combination of Alternatives N6 and S5. Alternative route N6 is located 1,500 feet east of the Kern River pipeline and extends 105.5 miles following an existing transmission line over the Mineral Mountains. Alternative route S5, 59 miles in length, turns southwest at Iron Springs, crosses the Antelope Range and State Route 56, and passes the community of Pinto. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transmission line would provide the additional transfer capacity between Sigurd and Red Butte for PacifiCorp to meet its contracted transmission obligations by 2014. Redundancy to existing infrastructure would substantially improve the reliability of electrical service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate emissions, impact soils, and occur across areas associated with geologic hazards, including earthquakes and landslides. Construction of access roads, work areas, and river and stream crossings could result in disturbance of riparian vegetation and deposition of fill into wetlands or waters of the United States. Project-related activities would affect Utah prairie dog, sage grouse, and southwestern willow flycatcher. The proposed routes would traverse mountains and intact landscapes impacting scenic quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110169, Volume I--888 pages, Volume II (Maps)--77 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 23 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-UT-C010-2009-0048-EIS KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Fishlake National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254416?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cedar City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 22 of 35] T2 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 876254413; 14930-9_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of permanent right-of-way (ROW) to PacifiCorp, doing business as Rocky Mountain Power, for a single-circuit, alternating-current, 345-kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission line extending approximately 160 miles between the Sigurd Substation in Sevier County, Utah to the Red Butte Substation in Washington County, Utah is proposed. The capacity of the southwest Utah electrical system, including the existing 345-kV transmission line (Sigurd to Red Butte No. 1), is expected to be exceeded by 2014. The requested ROW width on federal lands for construction and operation of the Sigurd to Red Butte No. 2 Transmission Line Project is 150 feet and includes portions of the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests. The project would include construction of access roads and expansion of the existing Sigurd Substation on private land to accommodate new substation equipment. Depending on the route selected, the project could cross portions of Sevier, Millard, Beaver, Iron, and Washington counties and may affect the areas around the communities of Sigurd, Richfield, Joseph, Elsinore, Milford, Newcastle, Minersville, Enterprise, Pinto, Central, and Pine Valley. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative routes N1 to N6 in the northern area segment would begin at Sigurd Substation and end south of the Black Mountains. Alternative routes S1 to S6 in the southern area segment would begin south of the Black Mountains and end at Red Butte Substation. Supporting structures would be 80 to 140 feet in height and spacing typically would be between 800 and 1,200 feet. Communications would be provided via optical fibers installed on the transmission lines. The proponent's proposed route is the combination of Alternatives N6 and S5. Alternative route N6 is located 1,500 feet east of the Kern River pipeline and extends 105.5 miles following an existing transmission line over the Mineral Mountains. Alternative route S5, 59 miles in length, turns southwest at Iron Springs, crosses the Antelope Range and State Route 56, and passes the community of Pinto. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transmission line would provide the additional transfer capacity between Sigurd and Red Butte for PacifiCorp to meet its contracted transmission obligations by 2014. Redundancy to existing infrastructure would substantially improve the reliability of electrical service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate emissions, impact soils, and occur across areas associated with geologic hazards, including earthquakes and landslides. Construction of access roads, work areas, and river and stream crossings could result in disturbance of riparian vegetation and deposition of fill into wetlands or waters of the United States. Project-related activities would affect Utah prairie dog, sage grouse, and southwestern willow flycatcher. The proposed routes would traverse mountains and intact landscapes impacting scenic quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110169, Volume I--888 pages, Volume II (Maps)--77 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 22 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-UT-C010-2009-0048-EIS KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Fishlake National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254413?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cedar City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 21 of 35] T2 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 876253999; 14930-9_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of permanent right-of-way (ROW) to PacifiCorp, doing business as Rocky Mountain Power, for a single-circuit, alternating-current, 345-kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission line extending approximately 160 miles between the Sigurd Substation in Sevier County, Utah to the Red Butte Substation in Washington County, Utah is proposed. The capacity of the southwest Utah electrical system, including the existing 345-kV transmission line (Sigurd to Red Butte No. 1), is expected to be exceeded by 2014. The requested ROW width on federal lands for construction and operation of the Sigurd to Red Butte No. 2 Transmission Line Project is 150 feet and includes portions of the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests. The project would include construction of access roads and expansion of the existing Sigurd Substation on private land to accommodate new substation equipment. Depending on the route selected, the project could cross portions of Sevier, Millard, Beaver, Iron, and Washington counties and may affect the areas around the communities of Sigurd, Richfield, Joseph, Elsinore, Milford, Newcastle, Minersville, Enterprise, Pinto, Central, and Pine Valley. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative routes N1 to N6 in the northern area segment would begin at Sigurd Substation and end south of the Black Mountains. Alternative routes S1 to S6 in the southern area segment would begin south of the Black Mountains and end at Red Butte Substation. Supporting structures would be 80 to 140 feet in height and spacing typically would be between 800 and 1,200 feet. Communications would be provided via optical fibers installed on the transmission lines. The proponent's proposed route is the combination of Alternatives N6 and S5. Alternative route N6 is located 1,500 feet east of the Kern River pipeline and extends 105.5 miles following an existing transmission line over the Mineral Mountains. Alternative route S5, 59 miles in length, turns southwest at Iron Springs, crosses the Antelope Range and State Route 56, and passes the community of Pinto. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transmission line would provide the additional transfer capacity between Sigurd and Red Butte for PacifiCorp to meet its contracted transmission obligations by 2014. Redundancy to existing infrastructure would substantially improve the reliability of electrical service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate emissions, impact soils, and occur across areas associated with geologic hazards, including earthquakes and landslides. Construction of access roads, work areas, and river and stream crossings could result in disturbance of riparian vegetation and deposition of fill into wetlands or waters of the United States. Project-related activities would affect Utah prairie dog, sage grouse, and southwestern willow flycatcher. The proposed routes would traverse mountains and intact landscapes impacting scenic quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110169, Volume I--888 pages, Volume II (Maps)--77 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 21 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-UT-C010-2009-0048-EIS KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Fishlake National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876253999?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cedar City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 20 of 35] T2 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 876253998; 14930-9_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of permanent right-of-way (ROW) to PacifiCorp, doing business as Rocky Mountain Power, for a single-circuit, alternating-current, 345-kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission line extending approximately 160 miles between the Sigurd Substation in Sevier County, Utah to the Red Butte Substation in Washington County, Utah is proposed. The capacity of the southwest Utah electrical system, including the existing 345-kV transmission line (Sigurd to Red Butte No. 1), is expected to be exceeded by 2014. The requested ROW width on federal lands for construction and operation of the Sigurd to Red Butte No. 2 Transmission Line Project is 150 feet and includes portions of the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests. The project would include construction of access roads and expansion of the existing Sigurd Substation on private land to accommodate new substation equipment. Depending on the route selected, the project could cross portions of Sevier, Millard, Beaver, Iron, and Washington counties and may affect the areas around the communities of Sigurd, Richfield, Joseph, Elsinore, Milford, Newcastle, Minersville, Enterprise, Pinto, Central, and Pine Valley. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative routes N1 to N6 in the northern area segment would begin at Sigurd Substation and end south of the Black Mountains. Alternative routes S1 to S6 in the southern area segment would begin south of the Black Mountains and end at Red Butte Substation. Supporting structures would be 80 to 140 feet in height and spacing typically would be between 800 and 1,200 feet. Communications would be provided via optical fibers installed on the transmission lines. The proponent's proposed route is the combination of Alternatives N6 and S5. Alternative route N6 is located 1,500 feet east of the Kern River pipeline and extends 105.5 miles following an existing transmission line over the Mineral Mountains. Alternative route S5, 59 miles in length, turns southwest at Iron Springs, crosses the Antelope Range and State Route 56, and passes the community of Pinto. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transmission line would provide the additional transfer capacity between Sigurd and Red Butte for PacifiCorp to meet its contracted transmission obligations by 2014. Redundancy to existing infrastructure would substantially improve the reliability of electrical service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate emissions, impact soils, and occur across areas associated with geologic hazards, including earthquakes and landslides. Construction of access roads, work areas, and river and stream crossings could result in disturbance of riparian vegetation and deposition of fill into wetlands or waters of the United States. Project-related activities would affect Utah prairie dog, sage grouse, and southwestern willow flycatcher. The proposed routes would traverse mountains and intact landscapes impacting scenic quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110169, Volume I--888 pages, Volume II (Maps)--77 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 20 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-UT-C010-2009-0048-EIS KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Fishlake National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876253998?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cedar City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 14 of 35] T2 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 876253997; 14930-9_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of permanent right-of-way (ROW) to PacifiCorp, doing business as Rocky Mountain Power, for a single-circuit, alternating-current, 345-kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission line extending approximately 160 miles between the Sigurd Substation in Sevier County, Utah to the Red Butte Substation in Washington County, Utah is proposed. The capacity of the southwest Utah electrical system, including the existing 345-kV transmission line (Sigurd to Red Butte No. 1), is expected to be exceeded by 2014. The requested ROW width on federal lands for construction and operation of the Sigurd to Red Butte No. 2 Transmission Line Project is 150 feet and includes portions of the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests. The project would include construction of access roads and expansion of the existing Sigurd Substation on private land to accommodate new substation equipment. Depending on the route selected, the project could cross portions of Sevier, Millard, Beaver, Iron, and Washington counties and may affect the areas around the communities of Sigurd, Richfield, Joseph, Elsinore, Milford, Newcastle, Minersville, Enterprise, Pinto, Central, and Pine Valley. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative routes N1 to N6 in the northern area segment would begin at Sigurd Substation and end south of the Black Mountains. Alternative routes S1 to S6 in the southern area segment would begin south of the Black Mountains and end at Red Butte Substation. Supporting structures would be 80 to 140 feet in height and spacing typically would be between 800 and 1,200 feet. Communications would be provided via optical fibers installed on the transmission lines. The proponent's proposed route is the combination of Alternatives N6 and S5. Alternative route N6 is located 1,500 feet east of the Kern River pipeline and extends 105.5 miles following an existing transmission line over the Mineral Mountains. Alternative route S5, 59 miles in length, turns southwest at Iron Springs, crosses the Antelope Range and State Route 56, and passes the community of Pinto. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transmission line would provide the additional transfer capacity between Sigurd and Red Butte for PacifiCorp to meet its contracted transmission obligations by 2014. Redundancy to existing infrastructure would substantially improve the reliability of electrical service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate emissions, impact soils, and occur across areas associated with geologic hazards, including earthquakes and landslides. Construction of access roads, work areas, and river and stream crossings could result in disturbance of riparian vegetation and deposition of fill into wetlands or waters of the United States. Project-related activities would affect Utah prairie dog, sage grouse, and southwestern willow flycatcher. The proposed routes would traverse mountains and intact landscapes impacting scenic quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110169, Volume I--888 pages, Volume II (Maps)--77 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-UT-C010-2009-0048-EIS KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Fishlake National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876253997?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cedar City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 13 of 35] T2 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 876253996; 14930-9_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of permanent right-of-way (ROW) to PacifiCorp, doing business as Rocky Mountain Power, for a single-circuit, alternating-current, 345-kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission line extending approximately 160 miles between the Sigurd Substation in Sevier County, Utah to the Red Butte Substation in Washington County, Utah is proposed. The capacity of the southwest Utah electrical system, including the existing 345-kV transmission line (Sigurd to Red Butte No. 1), is expected to be exceeded by 2014. The requested ROW width on federal lands for construction and operation of the Sigurd to Red Butte No. 2 Transmission Line Project is 150 feet and includes portions of the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests. The project would include construction of access roads and expansion of the existing Sigurd Substation on private land to accommodate new substation equipment. Depending on the route selected, the project could cross portions of Sevier, Millard, Beaver, Iron, and Washington counties and may affect the areas around the communities of Sigurd, Richfield, Joseph, Elsinore, Milford, Newcastle, Minersville, Enterprise, Pinto, Central, and Pine Valley. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative routes N1 to N6 in the northern area segment would begin at Sigurd Substation and end south of the Black Mountains. Alternative routes S1 to S6 in the southern area segment would begin south of the Black Mountains and end at Red Butte Substation. Supporting structures would be 80 to 140 feet in height and spacing typically would be between 800 and 1,200 feet. Communications would be provided via optical fibers installed on the transmission lines. The proponent's proposed route is the combination of Alternatives N6 and S5. Alternative route N6 is located 1,500 feet east of the Kern River pipeline and extends 105.5 miles following an existing transmission line over the Mineral Mountains. Alternative route S5, 59 miles in length, turns southwest at Iron Springs, crosses the Antelope Range and State Route 56, and passes the community of Pinto. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transmission line would provide the additional transfer capacity between Sigurd and Red Butte for PacifiCorp to meet its contracted transmission obligations by 2014. Redundancy to existing infrastructure would substantially improve the reliability of electrical service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate emissions, impact soils, and occur across areas associated with geologic hazards, including earthquakes and landslides. Construction of access roads, work areas, and river and stream crossings could result in disturbance of riparian vegetation and deposition of fill into wetlands or waters of the United States. Project-related activities would affect Utah prairie dog, sage grouse, and southwestern willow flycatcher. The proposed routes would traverse mountains and intact landscapes impacting scenic quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110169, Volume I--888 pages, Volume II (Maps)--77 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-UT-C010-2009-0048-EIS KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Fishlake National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876253996?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cedar City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 12 of 35] T2 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 876253995; 14930-9_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of permanent right-of-way (ROW) to PacifiCorp, doing business as Rocky Mountain Power, for a single-circuit, alternating-current, 345-kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission line extending approximately 160 miles between the Sigurd Substation in Sevier County, Utah to the Red Butte Substation in Washington County, Utah is proposed. The capacity of the southwest Utah electrical system, including the existing 345-kV transmission line (Sigurd to Red Butte No. 1), is expected to be exceeded by 2014. The requested ROW width on federal lands for construction and operation of the Sigurd to Red Butte No. 2 Transmission Line Project is 150 feet and includes portions of the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests. The project would include construction of access roads and expansion of the existing Sigurd Substation on private land to accommodate new substation equipment. Depending on the route selected, the project could cross portions of Sevier, Millard, Beaver, Iron, and Washington counties and may affect the areas around the communities of Sigurd, Richfield, Joseph, Elsinore, Milford, Newcastle, Minersville, Enterprise, Pinto, Central, and Pine Valley. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative routes N1 to N6 in the northern area segment would begin at Sigurd Substation and end south of the Black Mountains. Alternative routes S1 to S6 in the southern area segment would begin south of the Black Mountains and end at Red Butte Substation. Supporting structures would be 80 to 140 feet in height and spacing typically would be between 800 and 1,200 feet. Communications would be provided via optical fibers installed on the transmission lines. The proponent's proposed route is the combination of Alternatives N6 and S5. Alternative route N6 is located 1,500 feet east of the Kern River pipeline and extends 105.5 miles following an existing transmission line over the Mineral Mountains. Alternative route S5, 59 miles in length, turns southwest at Iron Springs, crosses the Antelope Range and State Route 56, and passes the community of Pinto. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transmission line would provide the additional transfer capacity between Sigurd and Red Butte for PacifiCorp to meet its contracted transmission obligations by 2014. Redundancy to existing infrastructure would substantially improve the reliability of electrical service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate emissions, impact soils, and occur across areas associated with geologic hazards, including earthquakes and landslides. Construction of access roads, work areas, and river and stream crossings could result in disturbance of riparian vegetation and deposition of fill into wetlands or waters of the United States. Project-related activities would affect Utah prairie dog, sage grouse, and southwestern willow flycatcher. The proposed routes would traverse mountains and intact landscapes impacting scenic quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110169, Volume I--888 pages, Volume II (Maps)--77 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-UT-C010-2009-0048-EIS KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Fishlake National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876253995?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cedar City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 30 of 35] T2 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 876252239; 14930-9_0030 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of permanent right-of-way (ROW) to PacifiCorp, doing business as Rocky Mountain Power, for a single-circuit, alternating-current, 345-kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission line extending approximately 160 miles between the Sigurd Substation in Sevier County, Utah to the Red Butte Substation in Washington County, Utah is proposed. The capacity of the southwest Utah electrical system, including the existing 345-kV transmission line (Sigurd to Red Butte No. 1), is expected to be exceeded by 2014. The requested ROW width on federal lands for construction and operation of the Sigurd to Red Butte No. 2 Transmission Line Project is 150 feet and includes portions of the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests. The project would include construction of access roads and expansion of the existing Sigurd Substation on private land to accommodate new substation equipment. Depending on the route selected, the project could cross portions of Sevier, Millard, Beaver, Iron, and Washington counties and may affect the areas around the communities of Sigurd, Richfield, Joseph, Elsinore, Milford, Newcastle, Minersville, Enterprise, Pinto, Central, and Pine Valley. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative routes N1 to N6 in the northern area segment would begin at Sigurd Substation and end south of the Black Mountains. Alternative routes S1 to S6 in the southern area segment would begin south of the Black Mountains and end at Red Butte Substation. Supporting structures would be 80 to 140 feet in height and spacing typically would be between 800 and 1,200 feet. Communications would be provided via optical fibers installed on the transmission lines. The proponent's proposed route is the combination of Alternatives N6 and S5. Alternative route N6 is located 1,500 feet east of the Kern River pipeline and extends 105.5 miles following an existing transmission line over the Mineral Mountains. Alternative route S5, 59 miles in length, turns southwest at Iron Springs, crosses the Antelope Range and State Route 56, and passes the community of Pinto. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transmission line would provide the additional transfer capacity between Sigurd and Red Butte for PacifiCorp to meet its contracted transmission obligations by 2014. Redundancy to existing infrastructure would substantially improve the reliability of electrical service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate emissions, impact soils, and occur across areas associated with geologic hazards, including earthquakes and landslides. Construction of access roads, work areas, and river and stream crossings could result in disturbance of riparian vegetation and deposition of fill into wetlands or waters of the United States. Project-related activities would affect Utah prairie dog, sage grouse, and southwestern willow flycatcher. The proposed routes would traverse mountains and intact landscapes impacting scenic quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110169, Volume I--888 pages, Volume II (Maps)--77 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 30 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-UT-C010-2009-0048-EIS KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Fishlake National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876252239?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cedar City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 29 of 35] T2 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 876252238; 14930-9_0029 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of permanent right-of-way (ROW) to PacifiCorp, doing business as Rocky Mountain Power, for a single-circuit, alternating-current, 345-kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission line extending approximately 160 miles between the Sigurd Substation in Sevier County, Utah to the Red Butte Substation in Washington County, Utah is proposed. The capacity of the southwest Utah electrical system, including the existing 345-kV transmission line (Sigurd to Red Butte No. 1), is expected to be exceeded by 2014. The requested ROW width on federal lands for construction and operation of the Sigurd to Red Butte No. 2 Transmission Line Project is 150 feet and includes portions of the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests. The project would include construction of access roads and expansion of the existing Sigurd Substation on private land to accommodate new substation equipment. Depending on the route selected, the project could cross portions of Sevier, Millard, Beaver, Iron, and Washington counties and may affect the areas around the communities of Sigurd, Richfield, Joseph, Elsinore, Milford, Newcastle, Minersville, Enterprise, Pinto, Central, and Pine Valley. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative routes N1 to N6 in the northern area segment would begin at Sigurd Substation and end south of the Black Mountains. Alternative routes S1 to S6 in the southern area segment would begin south of the Black Mountains and end at Red Butte Substation. Supporting structures would be 80 to 140 feet in height and spacing typically would be between 800 and 1,200 feet. Communications would be provided via optical fibers installed on the transmission lines. The proponent's proposed route is the combination of Alternatives N6 and S5. Alternative route N6 is located 1,500 feet east of the Kern River pipeline and extends 105.5 miles following an existing transmission line over the Mineral Mountains. Alternative route S5, 59 miles in length, turns southwest at Iron Springs, crosses the Antelope Range and State Route 56, and passes the community of Pinto. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transmission line would provide the additional transfer capacity between Sigurd and Red Butte for PacifiCorp to meet its contracted transmission obligations by 2014. Redundancy to existing infrastructure would substantially improve the reliability of electrical service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate emissions, impact soils, and occur across areas associated with geologic hazards, including earthquakes and landslides. Construction of access roads, work areas, and river and stream crossings could result in disturbance of riparian vegetation and deposition of fill into wetlands or waters of the United States. Project-related activities would affect Utah prairie dog, sage grouse, and southwestern willow flycatcher. The proposed routes would traverse mountains and intact landscapes impacting scenic quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110169, Volume I--888 pages, Volume II (Maps)--77 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 29 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-UT-C010-2009-0048-EIS KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Fishlake National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876252238?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cedar City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 28 of 35] T2 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 876252237; 14930-9_0028 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of permanent right-of-way (ROW) to PacifiCorp, doing business as Rocky Mountain Power, for a single-circuit, alternating-current, 345-kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission line extending approximately 160 miles between the Sigurd Substation in Sevier County, Utah to the Red Butte Substation in Washington County, Utah is proposed. The capacity of the southwest Utah electrical system, including the existing 345-kV transmission line (Sigurd to Red Butte No. 1), is expected to be exceeded by 2014. The requested ROW width on federal lands for construction and operation of the Sigurd to Red Butte No. 2 Transmission Line Project is 150 feet and includes portions of the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests. The project would include construction of access roads and expansion of the existing Sigurd Substation on private land to accommodate new substation equipment. Depending on the route selected, the project could cross portions of Sevier, Millard, Beaver, Iron, and Washington counties and may affect the areas around the communities of Sigurd, Richfield, Joseph, Elsinore, Milford, Newcastle, Minersville, Enterprise, Pinto, Central, and Pine Valley. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative routes N1 to N6 in the northern area segment would begin at Sigurd Substation and end south of the Black Mountains. Alternative routes S1 to S6 in the southern area segment would begin south of the Black Mountains and end at Red Butte Substation. Supporting structures would be 80 to 140 feet in height and spacing typically would be between 800 and 1,200 feet. Communications would be provided via optical fibers installed on the transmission lines. The proponent's proposed route is the combination of Alternatives N6 and S5. Alternative route N6 is located 1,500 feet east of the Kern River pipeline and extends 105.5 miles following an existing transmission line over the Mineral Mountains. Alternative route S5, 59 miles in length, turns southwest at Iron Springs, crosses the Antelope Range and State Route 56, and passes the community of Pinto. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transmission line would provide the additional transfer capacity between Sigurd and Red Butte for PacifiCorp to meet its contracted transmission obligations by 2014. Redundancy to existing infrastructure would substantially improve the reliability of electrical service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate emissions, impact soils, and occur across areas associated with geologic hazards, including earthquakes and landslides. Construction of access roads, work areas, and river and stream crossings could result in disturbance of riparian vegetation and deposition of fill into wetlands or waters of the United States. Project-related activities would affect Utah prairie dog, sage grouse, and southwestern willow flycatcher. The proposed routes would traverse mountains and intact landscapes impacting scenic quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110169, Volume I--888 pages, Volume II (Maps)--77 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 28 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-UT-C010-2009-0048-EIS KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Fishlake National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876252237?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cedar City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 27 of 35] T2 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 876252236; 14930-9_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of permanent right-of-way (ROW) to PacifiCorp, doing business as Rocky Mountain Power, for a single-circuit, alternating-current, 345-kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission line extending approximately 160 miles between the Sigurd Substation in Sevier County, Utah to the Red Butte Substation in Washington County, Utah is proposed. The capacity of the southwest Utah electrical system, including the existing 345-kV transmission line (Sigurd to Red Butte No. 1), is expected to be exceeded by 2014. The requested ROW width on federal lands for construction and operation of the Sigurd to Red Butte No. 2 Transmission Line Project is 150 feet and includes portions of the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests. The project would include construction of access roads and expansion of the existing Sigurd Substation on private land to accommodate new substation equipment. Depending on the route selected, the project could cross portions of Sevier, Millard, Beaver, Iron, and Washington counties and may affect the areas around the communities of Sigurd, Richfield, Joseph, Elsinore, Milford, Newcastle, Minersville, Enterprise, Pinto, Central, and Pine Valley. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative routes N1 to N6 in the northern area segment would begin at Sigurd Substation and end south of the Black Mountains. Alternative routes S1 to S6 in the southern area segment would begin south of the Black Mountains and end at Red Butte Substation. Supporting structures would be 80 to 140 feet in height and spacing typically would be between 800 and 1,200 feet. Communications would be provided via optical fibers installed on the transmission lines. The proponent's proposed route is the combination of Alternatives N6 and S5. Alternative route N6 is located 1,500 feet east of the Kern River pipeline and extends 105.5 miles following an existing transmission line over the Mineral Mountains. Alternative route S5, 59 miles in length, turns southwest at Iron Springs, crosses the Antelope Range and State Route 56, and passes the community of Pinto. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transmission line would provide the additional transfer capacity between Sigurd and Red Butte for PacifiCorp to meet its contracted transmission obligations by 2014. Redundancy to existing infrastructure would substantially improve the reliability of electrical service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate emissions, impact soils, and occur across areas associated with geologic hazards, including earthquakes and landslides. Construction of access roads, work areas, and river and stream crossings could result in disturbance of riparian vegetation and deposition of fill into wetlands or waters of the United States. Project-related activities would affect Utah prairie dog, sage grouse, and southwestern willow flycatcher. The proposed routes would traverse mountains and intact landscapes impacting scenic quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110169, Volume I--888 pages, Volume II (Maps)--77 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 27 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-UT-C010-2009-0048-EIS KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Fishlake National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876252236?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cedar City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 35 of 35] T2 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 876251774; 14930-9_0035 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of permanent right-of-way (ROW) to PacifiCorp, doing business as Rocky Mountain Power, for a single-circuit, alternating-current, 345-kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission line extending approximately 160 miles between the Sigurd Substation in Sevier County, Utah to the Red Butte Substation in Washington County, Utah is proposed. The capacity of the southwest Utah electrical system, including the existing 345-kV transmission line (Sigurd to Red Butte No. 1), is expected to be exceeded by 2014. The requested ROW width on federal lands for construction and operation of the Sigurd to Red Butte No. 2 Transmission Line Project is 150 feet and includes portions of the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests. The project would include construction of access roads and expansion of the existing Sigurd Substation on private land to accommodate new substation equipment. Depending on the route selected, the project could cross portions of Sevier, Millard, Beaver, Iron, and Washington counties and may affect the areas around the communities of Sigurd, Richfield, Joseph, Elsinore, Milford, Newcastle, Minersville, Enterprise, Pinto, Central, and Pine Valley. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative routes N1 to N6 in the northern area segment would begin at Sigurd Substation and end south of the Black Mountains. Alternative routes S1 to S6 in the southern area segment would begin south of the Black Mountains and end at Red Butte Substation. Supporting structures would be 80 to 140 feet in height and spacing typically would be between 800 and 1,200 feet. Communications would be provided via optical fibers installed on the transmission lines. The proponent's proposed route is the combination of Alternatives N6 and S5. Alternative route N6 is located 1,500 feet east of the Kern River pipeline and extends 105.5 miles following an existing transmission line over the Mineral Mountains. Alternative route S5, 59 miles in length, turns southwest at Iron Springs, crosses the Antelope Range and State Route 56, and passes the community of Pinto. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transmission line would provide the additional transfer capacity between Sigurd and Red Butte for PacifiCorp to meet its contracted transmission obligations by 2014. Redundancy to existing infrastructure would substantially improve the reliability of electrical service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate emissions, impact soils, and occur across areas associated with geologic hazards, including earthquakes and landslides. Construction of access roads, work areas, and river and stream crossings could result in disturbance of riparian vegetation and deposition of fill into wetlands or waters of the United States. Project-related activities would affect Utah prairie dog, sage grouse, and southwestern willow flycatcher. The proposed routes would traverse mountains and intact landscapes impacting scenic quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110169, Volume I--888 pages, Volume II (Maps)--77 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 35 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-UT-C010-2009-0048-EIS KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Fishlake National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876251774?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cedar City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 34 of 35] T2 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 876251773; 14930-9_0034 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of permanent right-of-way (ROW) to PacifiCorp, doing business as Rocky Mountain Power, for a single-circuit, alternating-current, 345-kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission line extending approximately 160 miles between the Sigurd Substation in Sevier County, Utah to the Red Butte Substation in Washington County, Utah is proposed. The capacity of the southwest Utah electrical system, including the existing 345-kV transmission line (Sigurd to Red Butte No. 1), is expected to be exceeded by 2014. The requested ROW width on federal lands for construction and operation of the Sigurd to Red Butte No. 2 Transmission Line Project is 150 feet and includes portions of the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests. The project would include construction of access roads and expansion of the existing Sigurd Substation on private land to accommodate new substation equipment. Depending on the route selected, the project could cross portions of Sevier, Millard, Beaver, Iron, and Washington counties and may affect the areas around the communities of Sigurd, Richfield, Joseph, Elsinore, Milford, Newcastle, Minersville, Enterprise, Pinto, Central, and Pine Valley. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative routes N1 to N6 in the northern area segment would begin at Sigurd Substation and end south of the Black Mountains. Alternative routes S1 to S6 in the southern area segment would begin south of the Black Mountains and end at Red Butte Substation. Supporting structures would be 80 to 140 feet in height and spacing typically would be between 800 and 1,200 feet. Communications would be provided via optical fibers installed on the transmission lines. The proponent's proposed route is the combination of Alternatives N6 and S5. Alternative route N6 is located 1,500 feet east of the Kern River pipeline and extends 105.5 miles following an existing transmission line over the Mineral Mountains. Alternative route S5, 59 miles in length, turns southwest at Iron Springs, crosses the Antelope Range and State Route 56, and passes the community of Pinto. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transmission line would provide the additional transfer capacity between Sigurd and Red Butte for PacifiCorp to meet its contracted transmission obligations by 2014. Redundancy to existing infrastructure would substantially improve the reliability of electrical service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate emissions, impact soils, and occur across areas associated with geologic hazards, including earthquakes and landslides. Construction of access roads, work areas, and river and stream crossings could result in disturbance of riparian vegetation and deposition of fill into wetlands or waters of the United States. Project-related activities would affect Utah prairie dog, sage grouse, and southwestern willow flycatcher. The proposed routes would traverse mountains and intact landscapes impacting scenic quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110169, Volume I--888 pages, Volume II (Maps)--77 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 34 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-UT-C010-2009-0048-EIS KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Fishlake National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876251773?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cedar City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 11 of 35] T2 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 876251772; 14930-9_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of permanent right-of-way (ROW) to PacifiCorp, doing business as Rocky Mountain Power, for a single-circuit, alternating-current, 345-kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission line extending approximately 160 miles between the Sigurd Substation in Sevier County, Utah to the Red Butte Substation in Washington County, Utah is proposed. The capacity of the southwest Utah electrical system, including the existing 345-kV transmission line (Sigurd to Red Butte No. 1), is expected to be exceeded by 2014. The requested ROW width on federal lands for construction and operation of the Sigurd to Red Butte No. 2 Transmission Line Project is 150 feet and includes portions of the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests. The project would include construction of access roads and expansion of the existing Sigurd Substation on private land to accommodate new substation equipment. Depending on the route selected, the project could cross portions of Sevier, Millard, Beaver, Iron, and Washington counties and may affect the areas around the communities of Sigurd, Richfield, Joseph, Elsinore, Milford, Newcastle, Minersville, Enterprise, Pinto, Central, and Pine Valley. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative routes N1 to N6 in the northern area segment would begin at Sigurd Substation and end south of the Black Mountains. Alternative routes S1 to S6 in the southern area segment would begin south of the Black Mountains and end at Red Butte Substation. Supporting structures would be 80 to 140 feet in height and spacing typically would be between 800 and 1,200 feet. Communications would be provided via optical fibers installed on the transmission lines. The proponent's proposed route is the combination of Alternatives N6 and S5. Alternative route N6 is located 1,500 feet east of the Kern River pipeline and extends 105.5 miles following an existing transmission line over the Mineral Mountains. Alternative route S5, 59 miles in length, turns southwest at Iron Springs, crosses the Antelope Range and State Route 56, and passes the community of Pinto. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transmission line would provide the additional transfer capacity between Sigurd and Red Butte for PacifiCorp to meet its contracted transmission obligations by 2014. Redundancy to existing infrastructure would substantially improve the reliability of electrical service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate emissions, impact soils, and occur across areas associated with geologic hazards, including earthquakes and landslides. Construction of access roads, work areas, and river and stream crossings could result in disturbance of riparian vegetation and deposition of fill into wetlands or waters of the United States. Project-related activities would affect Utah prairie dog, sage grouse, and southwestern willow flycatcher. The proposed routes would traverse mountains and intact landscapes impacting scenic quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110169, Volume I--888 pages, Volume II (Maps)--77 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-UT-C010-2009-0048-EIS KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Fishlake National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876251772?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cedar City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 10 of 35] T2 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 876251771; 14930-9_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of permanent right-of-way (ROW) to PacifiCorp, doing business as Rocky Mountain Power, for a single-circuit, alternating-current, 345-kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission line extending approximately 160 miles between the Sigurd Substation in Sevier County, Utah to the Red Butte Substation in Washington County, Utah is proposed. The capacity of the southwest Utah electrical system, including the existing 345-kV transmission line (Sigurd to Red Butte No. 1), is expected to be exceeded by 2014. The requested ROW width on federal lands for construction and operation of the Sigurd to Red Butte No. 2 Transmission Line Project is 150 feet and includes portions of the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests. The project would include construction of access roads and expansion of the existing Sigurd Substation on private land to accommodate new substation equipment. Depending on the route selected, the project could cross portions of Sevier, Millard, Beaver, Iron, and Washington counties and may affect the areas around the communities of Sigurd, Richfield, Joseph, Elsinore, Milford, Newcastle, Minersville, Enterprise, Pinto, Central, and Pine Valley. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative routes N1 to N6 in the northern area segment would begin at Sigurd Substation and end south of the Black Mountains. Alternative routes S1 to S6 in the southern area segment would begin south of the Black Mountains and end at Red Butte Substation. Supporting structures would be 80 to 140 feet in height and spacing typically would be between 800 and 1,200 feet. Communications would be provided via optical fibers installed on the transmission lines. The proponent's proposed route is the combination of Alternatives N6 and S5. Alternative route N6 is located 1,500 feet east of the Kern River pipeline and extends 105.5 miles following an existing transmission line over the Mineral Mountains. Alternative route S5, 59 miles in length, turns southwest at Iron Springs, crosses the Antelope Range and State Route 56, and passes the community of Pinto. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transmission line would provide the additional transfer capacity between Sigurd and Red Butte for PacifiCorp to meet its contracted transmission obligations by 2014. Redundancy to existing infrastructure would substantially improve the reliability of electrical service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate emissions, impact soils, and occur across areas associated with geologic hazards, including earthquakes and landslides. Construction of access roads, work areas, and river and stream crossings could result in disturbance of riparian vegetation and deposition of fill into wetlands or waters of the United States. Project-related activities would affect Utah prairie dog, sage grouse, and southwestern willow flycatcher. The proposed routes would traverse mountains and intact landscapes impacting scenic quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110169, Volume I--888 pages, Volume II (Maps)--77 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-UT-C010-2009-0048-EIS KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Fishlake National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876251771?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cedar City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 3 of 35] T2 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 876251767; 14930-9_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of permanent right-of-way (ROW) to PacifiCorp, doing business as Rocky Mountain Power, for a single-circuit, alternating-current, 345-kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission line extending approximately 160 miles between the Sigurd Substation in Sevier County, Utah to the Red Butte Substation in Washington County, Utah is proposed. The capacity of the southwest Utah electrical system, including the existing 345-kV transmission line (Sigurd to Red Butte No. 1), is expected to be exceeded by 2014. The requested ROW width on federal lands for construction and operation of the Sigurd to Red Butte No. 2 Transmission Line Project is 150 feet and includes portions of the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests. The project would include construction of access roads and expansion of the existing Sigurd Substation on private land to accommodate new substation equipment. Depending on the route selected, the project could cross portions of Sevier, Millard, Beaver, Iron, and Washington counties and may affect the areas around the communities of Sigurd, Richfield, Joseph, Elsinore, Milford, Newcastle, Minersville, Enterprise, Pinto, Central, and Pine Valley. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative routes N1 to N6 in the northern area segment would begin at Sigurd Substation and end south of the Black Mountains. Alternative routes S1 to S6 in the southern area segment would begin south of the Black Mountains and end at Red Butte Substation. Supporting structures would be 80 to 140 feet in height and spacing typically would be between 800 and 1,200 feet. Communications would be provided via optical fibers installed on the transmission lines. The proponent's proposed route is the combination of Alternatives N6 and S5. Alternative route N6 is located 1,500 feet east of the Kern River pipeline and extends 105.5 miles following an existing transmission line over the Mineral Mountains. Alternative route S5, 59 miles in length, turns southwest at Iron Springs, crosses the Antelope Range and State Route 56, and passes the community of Pinto. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transmission line would provide the additional transfer capacity between Sigurd and Red Butte for PacifiCorp to meet its contracted transmission obligations by 2014. Redundancy to existing infrastructure would substantially improve the reliability of electrical service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate emissions, impact soils, and occur across areas associated with geologic hazards, including earthquakes and landslides. Construction of access roads, work areas, and river and stream crossings could result in disturbance of riparian vegetation and deposition of fill into wetlands or waters of the United States. Project-related activities would affect Utah prairie dog, sage grouse, and southwestern willow flycatcher. The proposed routes would traverse mountains and intact landscapes impacting scenic quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110169, Volume I--888 pages, Volume II (Maps)--77 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-UT-C010-2009-0048-EIS KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Fishlake National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876251767?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cedar City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 2 of 35] T2 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 876251764; 14930-9_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of permanent right-of-way (ROW) to PacifiCorp, doing business as Rocky Mountain Power, for a single-circuit, alternating-current, 345-kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission line extending approximately 160 miles between the Sigurd Substation in Sevier County, Utah to the Red Butte Substation in Washington County, Utah is proposed. The capacity of the southwest Utah electrical system, including the existing 345-kV transmission line (Sigurd to Red Butte No. 1), is expected to be exceeded by 2014. The requested ROW width on federal lands for construction and operation of the Sigurd to Red Butte No. 2 Transmission Line Project is 150 feet and includes portions of the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests. The project would include construction of access roads and expansion of the existing Sigurd Substation on private land to accommodate new substation equipment. Depending on the route selected, the project could cross portions of Sevier, Millard, Beaver, Iron, and Washington counties and may affect the areas around the communities of Sigurd, Richfield, Joseph, Elsinore, Milford, Newcastle, Minersville, Enterprise, Pinto, Central, and Pine Valley. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative routes N1 to N6 in the northern area segment would begin at Sigurd Substation and end south of the Black Mountains. Alternative routes S1 to S6 in the southern area segment would begin south of the Black Mountains and end at Red Butte Substation. Supporting structures would be 80 to 140 feet in height and spacing typically would be between 800 and 1,200 feet. Communications would be provided via optical fibers installed on the transmission lines. The proponent's proposed route is the combination of Alternatives N6 and S5. Alternative route N6 is located 1,500 feet east of the Kern River pipeline and extends 105.5 miles following an existing transmission line over the Mineral Mountains. Alternative route S5, 59 miles in length, turns southwest at Iron Springs, crosses the Antelope Range and State Route 56, and passes the community of Pinto. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transmission line would provide the additional transfer capacity between Sigurd and Red Butte for PacifiCorp to meet its contracted transmission obligations by 2014. Redundancy to existing infrastructure would substantially improve the reliability of electrical service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate emissions, impact soils, and occur across areas associated with geologic hazards, including earthquakes and landslides. Construction of access roads, work areas, and river and stream crossings could result in disturbance of riparian vegetation and deposition of fill into wetlands or waters of the United States. Project-related activities would affect Utah prairie dog, sage grouse, and southwestern willow flycatcher. The proposed routes would traverse mountains and intact landscapes impacting scenic quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110169, Volume I--888 pages, Volume II (Maps)--77 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-UT-C010-2009-0048-EIS KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Fishlake National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876251764?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cedar City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 1 of 35] T2 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 876251763; 14930-9_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of permanent right-of-way (ROW) to PacifiCorp, doing business as Rocky Mountain Power, for a single-circuit, alternating-current, 345-kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission line extending approximately 160 miles between the Sigurd Substation in Sevier County, Utah to the Red Butte Substation in Washington County, Utah is proposed. The capacity of the southwest Utah electrical system, including the existing 345-kV transmission line (Sigurd to Red Butte No. 1), is expected to be exceeded by 2014. The requested ROW width on federal lands for construction and operation of the Sigurd to Red Butte No. 2 Transmission Line Project is 150 feet and includes portions of the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests. The project would include construction of access roads and expansion of the existing Sigurd Substation on private land to accommodate new substation equipment. Depending on the route selected, the project could cross portions of Sevier, Millard, Beaver, Iron, and Washington counties and may affect the areas around the communities of Sigurd, Richfield, Joseph, Elsinore, Milford, Newcastle, Minersville, Enterprise, Pinto, Central, and Pine Valley. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative routes N1 to N6 in the northern area segment would begin at Sigurd Substation and end south of the Black Mountains. Alternative routes S1 to S6 in the southern area segment would begin south of the Black Mountains and end at Red Butte Substation. Supporting structures would be 80 to 140 feet in height and spacing typically would be between 800 and 1,200 feet. Communications would be provided via optical fibers installed on the transmission lines. The proponent's proposed route is the combination of Alternatives N6 and S5. Alternative route N6 is located 1,500 feet east of the Kern River pipeline and extends 105.5 miles following an existing transmission line over the Mineral Mountains. Alternative route S5, 59 miles in length, turns southwest at Iron Springs, crosses the Antelope Range and State Route 56, and passes the community of Pinto. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transmission line would provide the additional transfer capacity between Sigurd and Red Butte for PacifiCorp to meet its contracted transmission obligations by 2014. Redundancy to existing infrastructure would substantially improve the reliability of electrical service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate emissions, impact soils, and occur across areas associated with geologic hazards, including earthquakes and landslides. Construction of access roads, work areas, and river and stream crossings could result in disturbance of riparian vegetation and deposition of fill into wetlands or waters of the United States. Project-related activities would affect Utah prairie dog, sage grouse, and southwestern willow flycatcher. The proposed routes would traverse mountains and intact landscapes impacting scenic quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110169, Volume I--888 pages, Volume II (Maps)--77 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-UT-C010-2009-0048-EIS KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Fishlake National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876251763?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cedar City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 24 of 35] T2 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 876249031; 14930-9_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of permanent right-of-way (ROW) to PacifiCorp, doing business as Rocky Mountain Power, for a single-circuit, alternating-current, 345-kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission line extending approximately 160 miles between the Sigurd Substation in Sevier County, Utah to the Red Butte Substation in Washington County, Utah is proposed. The capacity of the southwest Utah electrical system, including the existing 345-kV transmission line (Sigurd to Red Butte No. 1), is expected to be exceeded by 2014. The requested ROW width on federal lands for construction and operation of the Sigurd to Red Butte No. 2 Transmission Line Project is 150 feet and includes portions of the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests. The project would include construction of access roads and expansion of the existing Sigurd Substation on private land to accommodate new substation equipment. Depending on the route selected, the project could cross portions of Sevier, Millard, Beaver, Iron, and Washington counties and may affect the areas around the communities of Sigurd, Richfield, Joseph, Elsinore, Milford, Newcastle, Minersville, Enterprise, Pinto, Central, and Pine Valley. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative routes N1 to N6 in the northern area segment would begin at Sigurd Substation and end south of the Black Mountains. Alternative routes S1 to S6 in the southern area segment would begin south of the Black Mountains and end at Red Butte Substation. Supporting structures would be 80 to 140 feet in height and spacing typically would be between 800 and 1,200 feet. Communications would be provided via optical fibers installed on the transmission lines. The proponent's proposed route is the combination of Alternatives N6 and S5. Alternative route N6 is located 1,500 feet east of the Kern River pipeline and extends 105.5 miles following an existing transmission line over the Mineral Mountains. Alternative route S5, 59 miles in length, turns southwest at Iron Springs, crosses the Antelope Range and State Route 56, and passes the community of Pinto. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transmission line would provide the additional transfer capacity between Sigurd and Red Butte for PacifiCorp to meet its contracted transmission obligations by 2014. Redundancy to existing infrastructure would substantially improve the reliability of electrical service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate emissions, impact soils, and occur across areas associated with geologic hazards, including earthquakes and landslides. Construction of access roads, work areas, and river and stream crossings could result in disturbance of riparian vegetation and deposition of fill into wetlands or waters of the United States. Project-related activities would affect Utah prairie dog, sage grouse, and southwestern willow flycatcher. The proposed routes would traverse mountains and intact landscapes impacting scenic quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110169, Volume I--888 pages, Volume II (Maps)--77 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 24 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-UT-C010-2009-0048-EIS KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Fishlake National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876249031?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cedar City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 19 of 35] T2 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 876249025; 14930-9_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of permanent right-of-way (ROW) to PacifiCorp, doing business as Rocky Mountain Power, for a single-circuit, alternating-current, 345-kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission line extending approximately 160 miles between the Sigurd Substation in Sevier County, Utah to the Red Butte Substation in Washington County, Utah is proposed. The capacity of the southwest Utah electrical system, including the existing 345-kV transmission line (Sigurd to Red Butte No. 1), is expected to be exceeded by 2014. The requested ROW width on federal lands for construction and operation of the Sigurd to Red Butte No. 2 Transmission Line Project is 150 feet and includes portions of the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests. The project would include construction of access roads and expansion of the existing Sigurd Substation on private land to accommodate new substation equipment. Depending on the route selected, the project could cross portions of Sevier, Millard, Beaver, Iron, and Washington counties and may affect the areas around the communities of Sigurd, Richfield, Joseph, Elsinore, Milford, Newcastle, Minersville, Enterprise, Pinto, Central, and Pine Valley. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative routes N1 to N6 in the northern area segment would begin at Sigurd Substation and end south of the Black Mountains. Alternative routes S1 to S6 in the southern area segment would begin south of the Black Mountains and end at Red Butte Substation. Supporting structures would be 80 to 140 feet in height and spacing typically would be between 800 and 1,200 feet. Communications would be provided via optical fibers installed on the transmission lines. The proponent's proposed route is the combination of Alternatives N6 and S5. Alternative route N6 is located 1,500 feet east of the Kern River pipeline and extends 105.5 miles following an existing transmission line over the Mineral Mountains. Alternative route S5, 59 miles in length, turns southwest at Iron Springs, crosses the Antelope Range and State Route 56, and passes the community of Pinto. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transmission line would provide the additional transfer capacity between Sigurd and Red Butte for PacifiCorp to meet its contracted transmission obligations by 2014. Redundancy to existing infrastructure would substantially improve the reliability of electrical service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate emissions, impact soils, and occur across areas associated with geologic hazards, including earthquakes and landslides. Construction of access roads, work areas, and river and stream crossings could result in disturbance of riparian vegetation and deposition of fill into wetlands or waters of the United States. Project-related activities would affect Utah prairie dog, sage grouse, and southwestern willow flycatcher. The proposed routes would traverse mountains and intact landscapes impacting scenic quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110169, Volume I--888 pages, Volume II (Maps)--77 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 19 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-UT-C010-2009-0048-EIS KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Fishlake National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876249025?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cedar City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 18 of 35] T2 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 876249021; 14930-9_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of permanent right-of-way (ROW) to PacifiCorp, doing business as Rocky Mountain Power, for a single-circuit, alternating-current, 345-kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission line extending approximately 160 miles between the Sigurd Substation in Sevier County, Utah to the Red Butte Substation in Washington County, Utah is proposed. The capacity of the southwest Utah electrical system, including the existing 345-kV transmission line (Sigurd to Red Butte No. 1), is expected to be exceeded by 2014. The requested ROW width on federal lands for construction and operation of the Sigurd to Red Butte No. 2 Transmission Line Project is 150 feet and includes portions of the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests. The project would include construction of access roads and expansion of the existing Sigurd Substation on private land to accommodate new substation equipment. Depending on the route selected, the project could cross portions of Sevier, Millard, Beaver, Iron, and Washington counties and may affect the areas around the communities of Sigurd, Richfield, Joseph, Elsinore, Milford, Newcastle, Minersville, Enterprise, Pinto, Central, and Pine Valley. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative routes N1 to N6 in the northern area segment would begin at Sigurd Substation and end south of the Black Mountains. Alternative routes S1 to S6 in the southern area segment would begin south of the Black Mountains and end at Red Butte Substation. Supporting structures would be 80 to 140 feet in height and spacing typically would be between 800 and 1,200 feet. Communications would be provided via optical fibers installed on the transmission lines. The proponent's proposed route is the combination of Alternatives N6 and S5. Alternative route N6 is located 1,500 feet east of the Kern River pipeline and extends 105.5 miles following an existing transmission line over the Mineral Mountains. Alternative route S5, 59 miles in length, turns southwest at Iron Springs, crosses the Antelope Range and State Route 56, and passes the community of Pinto. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transmission line would provide the additional transfer capacity between Sigurd and Red Butte for PacifiCorp to meet its contracted transmission obligations by 2014. Redundancy to existing infrastructure would substantially improve the reliability of electrical service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate emissions, impact soils, and occur across areas associated with geologic hazards, including earthquakes and landslides. Construction of access roads, work areas, and river and stream crossings could result in disturbance of riparian vegetation and deposition of fill into wetlands or waters of the United States. Project-related activities would affect Utah prairie dog, sage grouse, and southwestern willow flycatcher. The proposed routes would traverse mountains and intact landscapes impacting scenic quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110169, Volume I--888 pages, Volume II (Maps)--77 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 18 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-UT-C010-2009-0048-EIS KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Fishlake National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876249021?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cedar City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 16 of 35] T2 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 876249012; 14930-9_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of permanent right-of-way (ROW) to PacifiCorp, doing business as Rocky Mountain Power, for a single-circuit, alternating-current, 345-kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission line extending approximately 160 miles between the Sigurd Substation in Sevier County, Utah to the Red Butte Substation in Washington County, Utah is proposed. The capacity of the southwest Utah electrical system, including the existing 345-kV transmission line (Sigurd to Red Butte No. 1), is expected to be exceeded by 2014. The requested ROW width on federal lands for construction and operation of the Sigurd to Red Butte No. 2 Transmission Line Project is 150 feet and includes portions of the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests. The project would include construction of access roads and expansion of the existing Sigurd Substation on private land to accommodate new substation equipment. Depending on the route selected, the project could cross portions of Sevier, Millard, Beaver, Iron, and Washington counties and may affect the areas around the communities of Sigurd, Richfield, Joseph, Elsinore, Milford, Newcastle, Minersville, Enterprise, Pinto, Central, and Pine Valley. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative routes N1 to N6 in the northern area segment would begin at Sigurd Substation and end south of the Black Mountains. Alternative routes S1 to S6 in the southern area segment would begin south of the Black Mountains and end at Red Butte Substation. Supporting structures would be 80 to 140 feet in height and spacing typically would be between 800 and 1,200 feet. Communications would be provided via optical fibers installed on the transmission lines. The proponent's proposed route is the combination of Alternatives N6 and S5. Alternative route N6 is located 1,500 feet east of the Kern River pipeline and extends 105.5 miles following an existing transmission line over the Mineral Mountains. Alternative route S5, 59 miles in length, turns southwest at Iron Springs, crosses the Antelope Range and State Route 56, and passes the community of Pinto. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transmission line would provide the additional transfer capacity between Sigurd and Red Butte for PacifiCorp to meet its contracted transmission obligations by 2014. Redundancy to existing infrastructure would substantially improve the reliability of electrical service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate emissions, impact soils, and occur across areas associated with geologic hazards, including earthquakes and landslides. Construction of access roads, work areas, and river and stream crossings could result in disturbance of riparian vegetation and deposition of fill into wetlands or waters of the United States. Project-related activities would affect Utah prairie dog, sage grouse, and southwestern willow flycatcher. The proposed routes would traverse mountains and intact landscapes impacting scenic quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110169, Volume I--888 pages, Volume II (Maps)--77 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 16 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-UT-C010-2009-0048-EIS KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Fishlake National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876249012?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cedar City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 15 of 35] T2 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 876249008; 14930-9_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of permanent right-of-way (ROW) to PacifiCorp, doing business as Rocky Mountain Power, for a single-circuit, alternating-current, 345-kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission line extending approximately 160 miles between the Sigurd Substation in Sevier County, Utah to the Red Butte Substation in Washington County, Utah is proposed. The capacity of the southwest Utah electrical system, including the existing 345-kV transmission line (Sigurd to Red Butte No. 1), is expected to be exceeded by 2014. The requested ROW width on federal lands for construction and operation of the Sigurd to Red Butte No. 2 Transmission Line Project is 150 feet and includes portions of the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests. The project would include construction of access roads and expansion of the existing Sigurd Substation on private land to accommodate new substation equipment. Depending on the route selected, the project could cross portions of Sevier, Millard, Beaver, Iron, and Washington counties and may affect the areas around the communities of Sigurd, Richfield, Joseph, Elsinore, Milford, Newcastle, Minersville, Enterprise, Pinto, Central, and Pine Valley. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative routes N1 to N6 in the northern area segment would begin at Sigurd Substation and end south of the Black Mountains. Alternative routes S1 to S6 in the southern area segment would begin south of the Black Mountains and end at Red Butte Substation. Supporting structures would be 80 to 140 feet in height and spacing typically would be between 800 and 1,200 feet. Communications would be provided via optical fibers installed on the transmission lines. The proponent's proposed route is the combination of Alternatives N6 and S5. Alternative route N6 is located 1,500 feet east of the Kern River pipeline and extends 105.5 miles following an existing transmission line over the Mineral Mountains. Alternative route S5, 59 miles in length, turns southwest at Iron Springs, crosses the Antelope Range and State Route 56, and passes the community of Pinto. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transmission line would provide the additional transfer capacity between Sigurd and Red Butte for PacifiCorp to meet its contracted transmission obligations by 2014. Redundancy to existing infrastructure would substantially improve the reliability of electrical service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate emissions, impact soils, and occur across areas associated with geologic hazards, including earthquakes and landslides. Construction of access roads, work areas, and river and stream crossings could result in disturbance of riparian vegetation and deposition of fill into wetlands or waters of the United States. Project-related activities would affect Utah prairie dog, sage grouse, and southwestern willow flycatcher. The proposed routes would traverse mountains and intact landscapes impacting scenic quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110169, Volume I--888 pages, Volume II (Maps)--77 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-UT-C010-2009-0048-EIS KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Fishlake National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876249008?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cedar City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 5 of 35] T2 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 876249004; 14930-9_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of permanent right-of-way (ROW) to PacifiCorp, doing business as Rocky Mountain Power, for a single-circuit, alternating-current, 345-kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission line extending approximately 160 miles between the Sigurd Substation in Sevier County, Utah to the Red Butte Substation in Washington County, Utah is proposed. The capacity of the southwest Utah electrical system, including the existing 345-kV transmission line (Sigurd to Red Butte No. 1), is expected to be exceeded by 2014. The requested ROW width on federal lands for construction and operation of the Sigurd to Red Butte No. 2 Transmission Line Project is 150 feet and includes portions of the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests. The project would include construction of access roads and expansion of the existing Sigurd Substation on private land to accommodate new substation equipment. Depending on the route selected, the project could cross portions of Sevier, Millard, Beaver, Iron, and Washington counties and may affect the areas around the communities of Sigurd, Richfield, Joseph, Elsinore, Milford, Newcastle, Minersville, Enterprise, Pinto, Central, and Pine Valley. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative routes N1 to N6 in the northern area segment would begin at Sigurd Substation and end south of the Black Mountains. Alternative routes S1 to S6 in the southern area segment would begin south of the Black Mountains and end at Red Butte Substation. Supporting structures would be 80 to 140 feet in height and spacing typically would be between 800 and 1,200 feet. Communications would be provided via optical fibers installed on the transmission lines. The proponent's proposed route is the combination of Alternatives N6 and S5. Alternative route N6 is located 1,500 feet east of the Kern River pipeline and extends 105.5 miles following an existing transmission line over the Mineral Mountains. Alternative route S5, 59 miles in length, turns southwest at Iron Springs, crosses the Antelope Range and State Route 56, and passes the community of Pinto. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transmission line would provide the additional transfer capacity between Sigurd and Red Butte for PacifiCorp to meet its contracted transmission obligations by 2014. Redundancy to existing infrastructure would substantially improve the reliability of electrical service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate emissions, impact soils, and occur across areas associated with geologic hazards, including earthquakes and landslides. Construction of access roads, work areas, and river and stream crossings could result in disturbance of riparian vegetation and deposition of fill into wetlands or waters of the United States. Project-related activities would affect Utah prairie dog, sage grouse, and southwestern willow flycatcher. The proposed routes would traverse mountains and intact landscapes impacting scenic quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110169, Volume I--888 pages, Volume II (Maps)--77 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-UT-C010-2009-0048-EIS KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Fishlake National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876249004?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cedar City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 4 of 35] T2 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 876248999; 14930-9_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of permanent right-of-way (ROW) to PacifiCorp, doing business as Rocky Mountain Power, for a single-circuit, alternating-current, 345-kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission line extending approximately 160 miles between the Sigurd Substation in Sevier County, Utah to the Red Butte Substation in Washington County, Utah is proposed. The capacity of the southwest Utah electrical system, including the existing 345-kV transmission line (Sigurd to Red Butte No. 1), is expected to be exceeded by 2014. The requested ROW width on federal lands for construction and operation of the Sigurd to Red Butte No. 2 Transmission Line Project is 150 feet and includes portions of the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests. The project would include construction of access roads and expansion of the existing Sigurd Substation on private land to accommodate new substation equipment. Depending on the route selected, the project could cross portions of Sevier, Millard, Beaver, Iron, and Washington counties and may affect the areas around the communities of Sigurd, Richfield, Joseph, Elsinore, Milford, Newcastle, Minersville, Enterprise, Pinto, Central, and Pine Valley. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative routes N1 to N6 in the northern area segment would begin at Sigurd Substation and end south of the Black Mountains. Alternative routes S1 to S6 in the southern area segment would begin south of the Black Mountains and end at Red Butte Substation. Supporting structures would be 80 to 140 feet in height and spacing typically would be between 800 and 1,200 feet. Communications would be provided via optical fibers installed on the transmission lines. The proponent's proposed route is the combination of Alternatives N6 and S5. Alternative route N6 is located 1,500 feet east of the Kern River pipeline and extends 105.5 miles following an existing transmission line over the Mineral Mountains. Alternative route S5, 59 miles in length, turns southwest at Iron Springs, crosses the Antelope Range and State Route 56, and passes the community of Pinto. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transmission line would provide the additional transfer capacity between Sigurd and Red Butte for PacifiCorp to meet its contracted transmission obligations by 2014. Redundancy to existing infrastructure would substantially improve the reliability of electrical service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate emissions, impact soils, and occur across areas associated with geologic hazards, including earthquakes and landslides. Construction of access roads, work areas, and river and stream crossings could result in disturbance of riparian vegetation and deposition of fill into wetlands or waters of the United States. Project-related activities would affect Utah prairie dog, sage grouse, and southwestern willow flycatcher. The proposed routes would traverse mountains and intact landscapes impacting scenic quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110169, Volume I--888 pages, Volume II (Maps)--77 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-UT-C010-2009-0048-EIS KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Fishlake National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876248999?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cedar City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ST. LUCIE COUNTY SOUTH BEACH AND DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 13 of 13] T2 - ST. LUCIE COUNTY SOUTH BEACH AND DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 876248988; 14931-0_0013 AB - PURPOSE: A beach nourishment project within the southernmost 5.2 miles of Atlantic shoreline in St. Lucie County on Floridas east coast is proposed. The countys coastline consists primarily of 21.5 miles of South Hutchinson and North Hutchinson Island, elongated barrier islands generally a mile or less wide separated by Ft. Pierce Inlet. The Indian River Lagoon, Ft. Pierce Inlet, and St. Lucie Inlet separate South Hutchinson Island from Floridas mainland. The beaches south of Fort Pierce Inlet have sustained long-term erosion due to the downdrift effects of the inlet and damaging storms have caused significant sand losses along county beaches since at least 1972. Net erosion rates of 13.1 feet per year, long-term erosion, hurricanes, and emergency fill efforts have left numerous buildings with minimal dune protection. Key issues include project design, the level of hardbottom impact, the level of mitigation, and the impacts that offshore shoal dredging would create. This draft EIS considers seven alternatives in detail: 1) a No Action Alternative; 2) beach fill with no impact to existing hardbottom; 3) beach fill to restore the 1972 beach and dune; 4) beach fill to restore the 1972 dune with a 35-foot berm; 5) beach fill to restore the 1972 dune with a 70-foot berm; 6) south segment beach and dune restoration, north segment dune restoration only; and 7) beach and dune restoration with T-head groins. The alternative preferred by the St. Lucie County Erosion District would fill the beach with sand from an offshore source to restore the 1972 dune with a 35-foot berm extending seaward from the dune toe along the length of the project area. The project would entail placement of 610,000 cubic yards of sand over 3.8 miles of barrier island shoreline to stabilize the beach and restore the dune along the South St. Lucie County beaches. As currently proposed, the 610,000 cubic yards of sand would be dredged from the southeast end of St. Lucie Shoal, approximately three miles offshore of the project area in state waters. Projected renourishment events would require 200,000 cubic yards of fill at 10-year intervals. The borrow area currently identified for project use and additional areas further along St. Lucie Shoal in federal waters could provide sufficient sand for a 50-year project life. Construction would occur between November 1 and May 1 to avoid impacts to nesting marine turtles. After project construction, a mix of native coastal dune pioneer plants would be planted on the restored dune. Mitigation reefs comprised of limestone boulders would be placed in areas of suitable, relatively shallow nearshore waters within the project area. In addition to the offshore shoal, upland mines are considered as a source of beach nourishment material. If sand from upland mines were used, the project would eliminate all in-water activity and pipelines along the beach. Trucks filled at the sand mine would traverse the beach and deposit sand at the necessary location where bulldozers would shape the sand. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would restore a protective beach lost to historical and ongoing erosion. The re-established beaches would: maintain commerce associated with beach recreation; maintain suitable beach habitat for nesting sea turtles, invertebrate species, and shorebirds; and reduce expected storm erosion damages to property and infrastructure. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging vessels could encounter sea turtles, manatees, and North Atlantic right whales with possible incidental take of sea turtles. Sand removal from offshore shoal could adversely affect essential fish habitat for coastal pelagic fishes, dolphin and wahoo, and highly migratory species. Dredging and beach placement activities would cause temporary, localized increases in turbidity and sedimentation and could disturb foraging and resting shorebirds. Under the preferred alternative, 1.08 acres of nearshore hardbottom habitat used as foraging habitat by juvenile sea turtles would be buried. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110170, Draft EIS--230 pages, Appendices--562 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Florida KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876248988?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY+SOUTH+BEACH+AND+DUNE+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY+SOUTH+BEACH+AND+DUNE+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+ST.+LUCIE+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 - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ST. LUCIE COUNTY SOUTH BEACH AND DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 12 of 13] T2 - ST. LUCIE COUNTY SOUTH BEACH AND DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 876248982; 14931-0_0012 AB - PURPOSE: A beach nourishment project within the southernmost 5.2 miles of Atlantic shoreline in St. Lucie County on Floridas east coast is proposed. The countys coastline consists primarily of 21.5 miles of South Hutchinson and North Hutchinson Island, elongated barrier islands generally a mile or less wide separated by Ft. Pierce Inlet. The Indian River Lagoon, Ft. Pierce Inlet, and St. Lucie Inlet separate South Hutchinson Island from Floridas mainland. The beaches south of Fort Pierce Inlet have sustained long-term erosion due to the downdrift effects of the inlet and damaging storms have caused significant sand losses along county beaches since at least 1972. Net erosion rates of 13.1 feet per year, long-term erosion, hurricanes, and emergency fill efforts have left numerous buildings with minimal dune protection. Key issues include project design, the level of hardbottom impact, the level of mitigation, and the impacts that offshore shoal dredging would create. This draft EIS considers seven alternatives in detail: 1) a No Action Alternative; 2) beach fill with no impact to existing hardbottom; 3) beach fill to restore the 1972 beach and dune; 4) beach fill to restore the 1972 dune with a 35-foot berm; 5) beach fill to restore the 1972 dune with a 70-foot berm; 6) south segment beach and dune restoration, north segment dune restoration only; and 7) beach and dune restoration with T-head groins. The alternative preferred by the St. Lucie County Erosion District would fill the beach with sand from an offshore source to restore the 1972 dune with a 35-foot berm extending seaward from the dune toe along the length of the project area. The project would entail placement of 610,000 cubic yards of sand over 3.8 miles of barrier island shoreline to stabilize the beach and restore the dune along the South St. Lucie County beaches. As currently proposed, the 610,000 cubic yards of sand would be dredged from the southeast end of St. Lucie Shoal, approximately three miles offshore of the project area in state waters. Projected renourishment events would require 200,000 cubic yards of fill at 10-year intervals. The borrow area currently identified for project use and additional areas further along St. Lucie Shoal in federal waters could provide sufficient sand for a 50-year project life. Construction would occur between November 1 and May 1 to avoid impacts to nesting marine turtles. After project construction, a mix of native coastal dune pioneer plants would be planted on the restored dune. Mitigation reefs comprised of limestone boulders would be placed in areas of suitable, relatively shallow nearshore waters within the project area. In addition to the offshore shoal, upland mines are considered as a source of beach nourishment material. If sand from upland mines were used, the project would eliminate all in-water activity and pipelines along the beach. Trucks filled at the sand mine would traverse the beach and deposit sand at the necessary location where bulldozers would shape the sand. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would restore a protective beach lost to historical and ongoing erosion. The re-established beaches would: maintain commerce associated with beach recreation; maintain suitable beach habitat for nesting sea turtles, invertebrate species, and shorebirds; and reduce expected storm erosion damages to property and infrastructure. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging vessels could encounter sea turtles, manatees, and North Atlantic right whales with possible incidental take of sea turtles. Sand removal from offshore shoal could adversely affect essential fish habitat for coastal pelagic fishes, dolphin and wahoo, and highly migratory species. Dredging and beach placement activities would cause temporary, localized increases in turbidity and sedimentation and could disturb foraging and resting shorebirds. Under the preferred alternative, 1.08 acres of nearshore hardbottom habitat used as foraging habitat by juvenile sea turtles would be buried. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110170, Draft EIS--230 pages, Appendices--562 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Florida KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876248982?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY+SOUTH+BEACH+AND+DUNE+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY+SOUTH+BEACH+AND+DUNE+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+ST.+LUCIE+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 - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ST. LUCIE COUNTY SOUTH BEACH AND DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 11 of 13] T2 - ST. LUCIE COUNTY SOUTH BEACH AND DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 876248977; 14931-0_0011 AB - PURPOSE: A beach nourishment project within the southernmost 5.2 miles of Atlantic shoreline in St. Lucie County on Floridas east coast is proposed. The countys coastline consists primarily of 21.5 miles of South Hutchinson and North Hutchinson Island, elongated barrier islands generally a mile or less wide separated by Ft. Pierce Inlet. The Indian River Lagoon, Ft. Pierce Inlet, and St. Lucie Inlet separate South Hutchinson Island from Floridas mainland. The beaches south of Fort Pierce Inlet have sustained long-term erosion due to the downdrift effects of the inlet and damaging storms have caused significant sand losses along county beaches since at least 1972. Net erosion rates of 13.1 feet per year, long-term erosion, hurricanes, and emergency fill efforts have left numerous buildings with minimal dune protection. Key issues include project design, the level of hardbottom impact, the level of mitigation, and the impacts that offshore shoal dredging would create. This draft EIS considers seven alternatives in detail: 1) a No Action Alternative; 2) beach fill with no impact to existing hardbottom; 3) beach fill to restore the 1972 beach and dune; 4) beach fill to restore the 1972 dune with a 35-foot berm; 5) beach fill to restore the 1972 dune with a 70-foot berm; 6) south segment beach and dune restoration, north segment dune restoration only; and 7) beach and dune restoration with T-head groins. The alternative preferred by the St. Lucie County Erosion District would fill the beach with sand from an offshore source to restore the 1972 dune with a 35-foot berm extending seaward from the dune toe along the length of the project area. The project would entail placement of 610,000 cubic yards of sand over 3.8 miles of barrier island shoreline to stabilize the beach and restore the dune along the South St. Lucie County beaches. As currently proposed, the 610,000 cubic yards of sand would be dredged from the southeast end of St. Lucie Shoal, approximately three miles offshore of the project area in state waters. Projected renourishment events would require 200,000 cubic yards of fill at 10-year intervals. The borrow area currently identified for project use and additional areas further along St. Lucie Shoal in federal waters could provide sufficient sand for a 50-year project life. Construction would occur between November 1 and May 1 to avoid impacts to nesting marine turtles. After project construction, a mix of native coastal dune pioneer plants would be planted on the restored dune. Mitigation reefs comprised of limestone boulders would be placed in areas of suitable, relatively shallow nearshore waters within the project area. In addition to the offshore shoal, upland mines are considered as a source of beach nourishment material. If sand from upland mines were used, the project would eliminate all in-water activity and pipelines along the beach. Trucks filled at the sand mine would traverse the beach and deposit sand at the necessary location where bulldozers would shape the sand. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would restore a protective beach lost to historical and ongoing erosion. The re-established beaches would: maintain commerce associated with beach recreation; maintain suitable beach habitat for nesting sea turtles, invertebrate species, and shorebirds; and reduce expected storm erosion damages to property and infrastructure. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging vessels could encounter sea turtles, manatees, and North Atlantic right whales with possible incidental take of sea turtles. Sand removal from offshore shoal could adversely affect essential fish habitat for coastal pelagic fishes, dolphin and wahoo, and highly migratory species. Dredging and beach placement activities would cause temporary, localized increases in turbidity and sedimentation and could disturb foraging and resting shorebirds. Under the preferred alternative, 1.08 acres of nearshore hardbottom habitat used as foraging habitat by juvenile sea turtles would be buried. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110170, Draft EIS--230 pages, Appendices--562 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Florida KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876248977?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY+SOUTH+BEACH+AND+DUNE+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY+SOUTH+BEACH+AND+DUNE+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+ST.+LUCIE+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 - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ST. LUCIE COUNTY SOUTH BEACH AND DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 10 of 13] T2 - ST. LUCIE COUNTY SOUTH BEACH AND DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 876248974; 14931-0_0010 AB - PURPOSE: A beach nourishment project within the southernmost 5.2 miles of Atlantic shoreline in St. Lucie County on Floridas east coast is proposed. The countys coastline consists primarily of 21.5 miles of South Hutchinson and North Hutchinson Island, elongated barrier islands generally a mile or less wide separated by Ft. Pierce Inlet. The Indian River Lagoon, Ft. Pierce Inlet, and St. Lucie Inlet separate South Hutchinson Island from Floridas mainland. The beaches south of Fort Pierce Inlet have sustained long-term erosion due to the downdrift effects of the inlet and damaging storms have caused significant sand losses along county beaches since at least 1972. Net erosion rates of 13.1 feet per year, long-term erosion, hurricanes, and emergency fill efforts have left numerous buildings with minimal dune protection. Key issues include project design, the level of hardbottom impact, the level of mitigation, and the impacts that offshore shoal dredging would create. This draft EIS considers seven alternatives in detail: 1) a No Action Alternative; 2) beach fill with no impact to existing hardbottom; 3) beach fill to restore the 1972 beach and dune; 4) beach fill to restore the 1972 dune with a 35-foot berm; 5) beach fill to restore the 1972 dune with a 70-foot berm; 6) south segment beach and dune restoration, north segment dune restoration only; and 7) beach and dune restoration with T-head groins. The alternative preferred by the St. Lucie County Erosion District would fill the beach with sand from an offshore source to restore the 1972 dune with a 35-foot berm extending seaward from the dune toe along the length of the project area. The project would entail placement of 610,000 cubic yards of sand over 3.8 miles of barrier island shoreline to stabilize the beach and restore the dune along the South St. Lucie County beaches. As currently proposed, the 610,000 cubic yards of sand would be dredged from the southeast end of St. Lucie Shoal, approximately three miles offshore of the project area in state waters. Projected renourishment events would require 200,000 cubic yards of fill at 10-year intervals. The borrow area currently identified for project use and additional areas further along St. Lucie Shoal in federal waters could provide sufficient sand for a 50-year project life. Construction would occur between November 1 and May 1 to avoid impacts to nesting marine turtles. After project construction, a mix of native coastal dune pioneer plants would be planted on the restored dune. Mitigation reefs comprised of limestone boulders would be placed in areas of suitable, relatively shallow nearshore waters within the project area. In addition to the offshore shoal, upland mines are considered as a source of beach nourishment material. If sand from upland mines were used, the project would eliminate all in-water activity and pipelines along the beach. Trucks filled at the sand mine would traverse the beach and deposit sand at the necessary location where bulldozers would shape the sand. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would restore a protective beach lost to historical and ongoing erosion. The re-established beaches would: maintain commerce associated with beach recreation; maintain suitable beach habitat for nesting sea turtles, invertebrate species, and shorebirds; and reduce expected storm erosion damages to property and infrastructure. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging vessels could encounter sea turtles, manatees, and North Atlantic right whales with possible incidental take of sea turtles. Sand removal from offshore shoal could adversely affect essential fish habitat for coastal pelagic fishes, dolphin and wahoo, and highly migratory species. Dredging and beach placement activities would cause temporary, localized increases in turbidity and sedimentation and could disturb foraging and resting shorebirds. Under the preferred alternative, 1.08 acres of nearshore hardbottom habitat used as foraging habitat by juvenile sea turtles would be buried. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110170, Draft EIS--230 pages, Appendices--562 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Florida KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876248974?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY+SOUTH+BEACH+AND+DUNE+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY+SOUTH+BEACH+AND+DUNE+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+ST.+LUCIE+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 - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 33 of 35] T2 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 876248841; 14930-9_0033 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of permanent right-of-way (ROW) to PacifiCorp, doing business as Rocky Mountain Power, for a single-circuit, alternating-current, 345-kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission line extending approximately 160 miles between the Sigurd Substation in Sevier County, Utah to the Red Butte Substation in Washington County, Utah is proposed. The capacity of the southwest Utah electrical system, including the existing 345-kV transmission line (Sigurd to Red Butte No. 1), is expected to be exceeded by 2014. The requested ROW width on federal lands for construction and operation of the Sigurd to Red Butte No. 2 Transmission Line Project is 150 feet and includes portions of the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests. The project would include construction of access roads and expansion of the existing Sigurd Substation on private land to accommodate new substation equipment. Depending on the route selected, the project could cross portions of Sevier, Millard, Beaver, Iron, and Washington counties and may affect the areas around the communities of Sigurd, Richfield, Joseph, Elsinore, Milford, Newcastle, Minersville, Enterprise, Pinto, Central, and Pine Valley. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative routes N1 to N6 in the northern area segment would begin at Sigurd Substation and end south of the Black Mountains. Alternative routes S1 to S6 in the southern area segment would begin south of the Black Mountains and end at Red Butte Substation. Supporting structures would be 80 to 140 feet in height and spacing typically would be between 800 and 1,200 feet. Communications would be provided via optical fibers installed on the transmission lines. The proponent's proposed route is the combination of Alternatives N6 and S5. Alternative route N6 is located 1,500 feet east of the Kern River pipeline and extends 105.5 miles following an existing transmission line over the Mineral Mountains. Alternative route S5, 59 miles in length, turns southwest at Iron Springs, crosses the Antelope Range and State Route 56, and passes the community of Pinto. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transmission line would provide the additional transfer capacity between Sigurd and Red Butte for PacifiCorp to meet its contracted transmission obligations by 2014. Redundancy to existing infrastructure would substantially improve the reliability of electrical service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate emissions, impact soils, and occur across areas associated with geologic hazards, including earthquakes and landslides. Construction of access roads, work areas, and river and stream crossings could result in disturbance of riparian vegetation and deposition of fill into wetlands or waters of the United States. Project-related activities would affect Utah prairie dog, sage grouse, and southwestern willow flycatcher. The proposed routes would traverse mountains and intact landscapes impacting scenic quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110169, Volume I--888 pages, Volume II (Maps)--77 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 33 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-UT-C010-2009-0048-EIS KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Fishlake National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876248841?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cedar City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 32 of 35] T2 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 876248837; 14930-9_0032 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of permanent right-of-way (ROW) to PacifiCorp, doing business as Rocky Mountain Power, for a single-circuit, alternating-current, 345-kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission line extending approximately 160 miles between the Sigurd Substation in Sevier County, Utah to the Red Butte Substation in Washington County, Utah is proposed. The capacity of the southwest Utah electrical system, including the existing 345-kV transmission line (Sigurd to Red Butte No. 1), is expected to be exceeded by 2014. The requested ROW width on federal lands for construction and operation of the Sigurd to Red Butte No. 2 Transmission Line Project is 150 feet and includes portions of the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests. The project would include construction of access roads and expansion of the existing Sigurd Substation on private land to accommodate new substation equipment. Depending on the route selected, the project could cross portions of Sevier, Millard, Beaver, Iron, and Washington counties and may affect the areas around the communities of Sigurd, Richfield, Joseph, Elsinore, Milford, Newcastle, Minersville, Enterprise, Pinto, Central, and Pine Valley. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative routes N1 to N6 in the northern area segment would begin at Sigurd Substation and end south of the Black Mountains. Alternative routes S1 to S6 in the southern area segment would begin south of the Black Mountains and end at Red Butte Substation. Supporting structures would be 80 to 140 feet in height and spacing typically would be between 800 and 1,200 feet. Communications would be provided via optical fibers installed on the transmission lines. The proponent's proposed route is the combination of Alternatives N6 and S5. Alternative route N6 is located 1,500 feet east of the Kern River pipeline and extends 105.5 miles following an existing transmission line over the Mineral Mountains. Alternative route S5, 59 miles in length, turns southwest at Iron Springs, crosses the Antelope Range and State Route 56, and passes the community of Pinto. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transmission line would provide the additional transfer capacity between Sigurd and Red Butte for PacifiCorp to meet its contracted transmission obligations by 2014. Redundancy to existing infrastructure would substantially improve the reliability of electrical service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate emissions, impact soils, and occur across areas associated with geologic hazards, including earthquakes and landslides. Construction of access roads, work areas, and river and stream crossings could result in disturbance of riparian vegetation and deposition of fill into wetlands or waters of the United States. Project-related activities would affect Utah prairie dog, sage grouse, and southwestern willow flycatcher. The proposed routes would traverse mountains and intact landscapes impacting scenic quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110169, Volume I--888 pages, Volume II (Maps)--77 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 32 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-UT-C010-2009-0048-EIS KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Fishlake National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876248837?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cedar City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 31 of 35] T2 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 876248831; 14930-9_0031 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of permanent right-of-way (ROW) to PacifiCorp, doing business as Rocky Mountain Power, for a single-circuit, alternating-current, 345-kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission line extending approximately 160 miles between the Sigurd Substation in Sevier County, Utah to the Red Butte Substation in Washington County, Utah is proposed. The capacity of the southwest Utah electrical system, including the existing 345-kV transmission line (Sigurd to Red Butte No. 1), is expected to be exceeded by 2014. The requested ROW width on federal lands for construction and operation of the Sigurd to Red Butte No. 2 Transmission Line Project is 150 feet and includes portions of the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests. The project would include construction of access roads and expansion of the existing Sigurd Substation on private land to accommodate new substation equipment. Depending on the route selected, the project could cross portions of Sevier, Millard, Beaver, Iron, and Washington counties and may affect the areas around the communities of Sigurd, Richfield, Joseph, Elsinore, Milford, Newcastle, Minersville, Enterprise, Pinto, Central, and Pine Valley. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative routes N1 to N6 in the northern area segment would begin at Sigurd Substation and end south of the Black Mountains. Alternative routes S1 to S6 in the southern area segment would begin south of the Black Mountains and end at Red Butte Substation. Supporting structures would be 80 to 140 feet in height and spacing typically would be between 800 and 1,200 feet. Communications would be provided via optical fibers installed on the transmission lines. The proponent's proposed route is the combination of Alternatives N6 and S5. Alternative route N6 is located 1,500 feet east of the Kern River pipeline and extends 105.5 miles following an existing transmission line over the Mineral Mountains. Alternative route S5, 59 miles in length, turns southwest at Iron Springs, crosses the Antelope Range and State Route 56, and passes the community of Pinto. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transmission line would provide the additional transfer capacity between Sigurd and Red Butte for PacifiCorp to meet its contracted transmission obligations by 2014. Redundancy to existing infrastructure would substantially improve the reliability of electrical service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate emissions, impact soils, and occur across areas associated with geologic hazards, including earthquakes and landslides. Construction of access roads, work areas, and river and stream crossings could result in disturbance of riparian vegetation and deposition of fill into wetlands or waters of the United States. Project-related activities would affect Utah prairie dog, sage grouse, and southwestern willow flycatcher. The proposed routes would traverse mountains and intact landscapes impacting scenic quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110169, Volume I--888 pages, Volume II (Maps)--77 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 31 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-UT-C010-2009-0048-EIS KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Fishlake National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876248831?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cedar City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 6 of 35] T2 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 876246543; 14930-9_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of permanent right-of-way (ROW) to PacifiCorp, doing business as Rocky Mountain Power, for a single-circuit, alternating-current, 345-kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission line extending approximately 160 miles between the Sigurd Substation in Sevier County, Utah to the Red Butte Substation in Washington County, Utah is proposed. The capacity of the southwest Utah electrical system, including the existing 345-kV transmission line (Sigurd to Red Butte No. 1), is expected to be exceeded by 2014. The requested ROW width on federal lands for construction and operation of the Sigurd to Red Butte No. 2 Transmission Line Project is 150 feet and includes portions of the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests. The project would include construction of access roads and expansion of the existing Sigurd Substation on private land to accommodate new substation equipment. Depending on the route selected, the project could cross portions of Sevier, Millard, Beaver, Iron, and Washington counties and may affect the areas around the communities of Sigurd, Richfield, Joseph, Elsinore, Milford, Newcastle, Minersville, Enterprise, Pinto, Central, and Pine Valley. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative routes N1 to N6 in the northern area segment would begin at Sigurd Substation and end south of the Black Mountains. Alternative routes S1 to S6 in the southern area segment would begin south of the Black Mountains and end at Red Butte Substation. Supporting structures would be 80 to 140 feet in height and spacing typically would be between 800 and 1,200 feet. Communications would be provided via optical fibers installed on the transmission lines. The proponent's proposed route is the combination of Alternatives N6 and S5. Alternative route N6 is located 1,500 feet east of the Kern River pipeline and extends 105.5 miles following an existing transmission line over the Mineral Mountains. Alternative route S5, 59 miles in length, turns southwest at Iron Springs, crosses the Antelope Range and State Route 56, and passes the community of Pinto. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transmission line would provide the additional transfer capacity between Sigurd and Red Butte for PacifiCorp to meet its contracted transmission obligations by 2014. Redundancy to existing infrastructure would substantially improve the reliability of electrical service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate emissions, impact soils, and occur across areas associated with geologic hazards, including earthquakes and landslides. Construction of access roads, work areas, and river and stream crossings could result in disturbance of riparian vegetation and deposition of fill into wetlands or waters of the United States. Project-related activities would affect Utah prairie dog, sage grouse, and southwestern willow flycatcher. The proposed routes would traverse mountains and intact landscapes impacting scenic quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110169, Volume I--888 pages, Volume II (Maps)--77 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-UT-C010-2009-0048-EIS KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Fishlake National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876246543?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cedar City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 8 of 35] T2 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 876244418; 14930-9_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of permanent right-of-way (ROW) to PacifiCorp, doing business as Rocky Mountain Power, for a single-circuit, alternating-current, 345-kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission line extending approximately 160 miles between the Sigurd Substation in Sevier County, Utah to the Red Butte Substation in Washington County, Utah is proposed. The capacity of the southwest Utah electrical system, including the existing 345-kV transmission line (Sigurd to Red Butte No. 1), is expected to be exceeded by 2014. The requested ROW width on federal lands for construction and operation of the Sigurd to Red Butte No. 2 Transmission Line Project is 150 feet and includes portions of the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests. The project would include construction of access roads and expansion of the existing Sigurd Substation on private land to accommodate new substation equipment. Depending on the route selected, the project could cross portions of Sevier, Millard, Beaver, Iron, and Washington counties and may affect the areas around the communities of Sigurd, Richfield, Joseph, Elsinore, Milford, Newcastle, Minersville, Enterprise, Pinto, Central, and Pine Valley. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative routes N1 to N6 in the northern area segment would begin at Sigurd Substation and end south of the Black Mountains. Alternative routes S1 to S6 in the southern area segment would begin south of the Black Mountains and end at Red Butte Substation. Supporting structures would be 80 to 140 feet in height and spacing typically would be between 800 and 1,200 feet. Communications would be provided via optical fibers installed on the transmission lines. The proponent's proposed route is the combination of Alternatives N6 and S5. Alternative route N6 is located 1,500 feet east of the Kern River pipeline and extends 105.5 miles following an existing transmission line over the Mineral Mountains. Alternative route S5, 59 miles in length, turns southwest at Iron Springs, crosses the Antelope Range and State Route 56, and passes the community of Pinto. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transmission line would provide the additional transfer capacity between Sigurd and Red Butte for PacifiCorp to meet its contracted transmission obligations by 2014. Redundancy to existing infrastructure would substantially improve the reliability of electrical service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate emissions, impact soils, and occur across areas associated with geologic hazards, including earthquakes and landslides. Construction of access roads, work areas, and river and stream crossings could result in disturbance of riparian vegetation and deposition of fill into wetlands or waters of the United States. Project-related activities would affect Utah prairie dog, sage grouse, and southwestern willow flycatcher. The proposed routes would traverse mountains and intact landscapes impacting scenic quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110169, Volume I--888 pages, Volume II (Maps)--77 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-UT-C010-2009-0048-EIS KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Fishlake National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876244418?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cedar City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 7 of 35] T2 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 876244402; 14930-9_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of permanent right-of-way (ROW) to PacifiCorp, doing business as Rocky Mountain Power, for a single-circuit, alternating-current, 345-kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission line extending approximately 160 miles between the Sigurd Substation in Sevier County, Utah to the Red Butte Substation in Washington County, Utah is proposed. The capacity of the southwest Utah electrical system, including the existing 345-kV transmission line (Sigurd to Red Butte No. 1), is expected to be exceeded by 2014. The requested ROW width on federal lands for construction and operation of the Sigurd to Red Butte No. 2 Transmission Line Project is 150 feet and includes portions of the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests. The project would include construction of access roads and expansion of the existing Sigurd Substation on private land to accommodate new substation equipment. Depending on the route selected, the project could cross portions of Sevier, Millard, Beaver, Iron, and Washington counties and may affect the areas around the communities of Sigurd, Richfield, Joseph, Elsinore, Milford, Newcastle, Minersville, Enterprise, Pinto, Central, and Pine Valley. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative routes N1 to N6 in the northern area segment would begin at Sigurd Substation and end south of the Black Mountains. Alternative routes S1 to S6 in the southern area segment would begin south of the Black Mountains and end at Red Butte Substation. Supporting structures would be 80 to 140 feet in height and spacing typically would be between 800 and 1,200 feet. Communications would be provided via optical fibers installed on the transmission lines. The proponent's proposed route is the combination of Alternatives N6 and S5. Alternative route N6 is located 1,500 feet east of the Kern River pipeline and extends 105.5 miles following an existing transmission line over the Mineral Mountains. Alternative route S5, 59 miles in length, turns southwest at Iron Springs, crosses the Antelope Range and State Route 56, and passes the community of Pinto. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transmission line would provide the additional transfer capacity between Sigurd and Red Butte for PacifiCorp to meet its contracted transmission obligations by 2014. Redundancy to existing infrastructure would substantially improve the reliability of electrical service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate emissions, impact soils, and occur across areas associated with geologic hazards, including earthquakes and landslides. Construction of access roads, work areas, and river and stream crossings could result in disturbance of riparian vegetation and deposition of fill into wetlands or waters of the United States. Project-related activities would affect Utah prairie dog, sage grouse, and southwestern willow flycatcher. The proposed routes would traverse mountains and intact landscapes impacting scenic quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110169, Volume I--888 pages, Volume II (Maps)--77 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-UT-C010-2009-0048-EIS KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Fishlake National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876244402?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cedar City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ST. LUCIE COUNTY SOUTH BEACH AND DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 873702023; 14931 AB - PURPOSE: A beach nourishment project within the southernmost 5.2 miles of Atlantic shoreline in St. Lucie County on Floridas east coast is proposed. The countys coastline consists primarily of 21.5 miles of South Hutchinson and North Hutchinson Island, elongated barrier islands generally a mile or less wide separated by Ft. Pierce Inlet. The Indian River Lagoon, Ft. Pierce Inlet, and St. Lucie Inlet separate South Hutchinson Island from Floridas mainland. The beaches south of Fort Pierce Inlet have sustained long-term erosion due to the downdrift effects of the inlet and damaging storms have caused significant sand losses along county beaches since at least 1972. Net erosion rates of 13.1 feet per year, long-term erosion, hurricanes, and emergency fill efforts have left numerous buildings with minimal dune protection. Key issues include project design, the level of hardbottom impact, the level of mitigation, and the impacts that offshore shoal dredging would create. This draft EIS considers seven alternatives in detail: 1) a No Action Alternative; 2) beach fill with no impact to existing hardbottom; 3) beach fill to restore the 1972 beach and dune; 4) beach fill to restore the 1972 dune with a 35-foot berm; 5) beach fill to restore the 1972 dune with a 70-foot berm; 6) south segment beach and dune restoration, north segment dune restoration only; and 7) beach and dune restoration with T-head groins. The alternative preferred by the St. Lucie County Erosion District would fill the beach with sand from an offshore source to restore the 1972 dune with a 35-foot berm extending seaward from the dune toe along the length of the project area. The project would entail placement of 610,000 cubic yards of sand over 3.8 miles of barrier island shoreline to stabilize the beach and restore the dune along the South St. Lucie County beaches. As currently proposed, the 610,000 cubic yards of sand would be dredged from the southeast end of St. Lucie Shoal, approximately three miles offshore of the project area in state waters. Projected renourishment events would require 200,000 cubic yards of fill at 10-year intervals. The borrow area currently identified for project use and additional areas further along St. Lucie Shoal in federal waters could provide sufficient sand for a 50-year project life. Construction would occur between November 1 and May 1 to avoid impacts to nesting marine turtles. After project construction, a mix of native coastal dune pioneer plants would be planted on the restored dune. Mitigation reefs comprised of limestone boulders would be placed in areas of suitable, relatively shallow nearshore waters within the project area. In addition to the offshore shoal, upland mines are considered as a source of beach nourishment material. If sand from upland mines were used, the project would eliminate all in-water activity and pipelines along the beach. Trucks filled at the sand mine would traverse the beach and deposit sand at the necessary location where bulldozers would shape the sand. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would restore a protective beach lost to historical and ongoing erosion. The re-established beaches would: maintain commerce associated with beach recreation; maintain suitable beach habitat for nesting sea turtles, invertebrate species, and shorebirds; and reduce expected storm erosion damages to property and infrastructure. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging vessels could encounter sea turtles, manatees, and North Atlantic right whales with possible incidental take of sea turtles. Sand removal from offshore shoal could adversely affect essential fish habitat for coastal pelagic fishes, dolphin and wahoo, and highly migratory species. Dredging and beach placement activities would cause temporary, localized increases in turbidity and sedimentation and could disturb foraging and resting shorebirds. Under the preferred alternative, 1.08 acres of nearshore hardbottom habitat used as foraging habitat by juvenile sea turtles would be buried. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110170, Draft EIS--230 pages, Appendices--562 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Florida KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873702023?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY+SOUTH+BEACH+AND+DUNE+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY+SOUTH+BEACH+AND+DUNE+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+ST.+LUCIE+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 - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 16385331; 14930 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of permanent right-of-way (ROW) to PacifiCorp, doing business as Rocky Mountain Power, for a single-circuit, alternating-current, 345-kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission line extending approximately 160 miles between the Sigurd Substation in Sevier County, Utah to the Red Butte Substation in Washington County, Utah is proposed. The capacity of the southwest Utah electrical system, including the existing 345-kV transmission line (Sigurd to Red Butte No. 1), is expected to be exceeded by 2014. The requested ROW width on federal lands for construction and operation of the Sigurd to Red Butte No. 2 Transmission Line Project is 150 feet and includes portions of the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests. The project would include construction of access roads and expansion of the existing Sigurd Substation on private land to accommodate new substation equipment. Depending on the route selected, the project could cross portions of Sevier, Millard, Beaver, Iron, and Washington counties and may affect the areas around the communities of Sigurd, Richfield, Joseph, Elsinore, Milford, Newcastle, Minersville, Enterprise, Pinto, Central, and Pine Valley. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative routes N1 to N6 in the northern area segment would begin at Sigurd Substation and end south of the Black Mountains. Alternative routes S1 to S6 in the southern area segment would begin south of the Black Mountains and end at Red Butte Substation. Supporting structures would be 80 to 140 feet in height and spacing typically would be between 800 and 1,200 feet. Communications would be provided via optical fibers installed on the transmission lines. The proponent's proposed route is the combination of Alternatives N6 and S5. Alternative route N6 is located 1,500 feet east of the Kern River pipeline and extends 105.5 miles following an existing transmission line over the Mineral Mountains. Alternative route S5, 59 miles in length, turns southwest at Iron Springs, crosses the Antelope Range and State Route 56, and passes the community of Pinto. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transmission line would provide the additional transfer capacity between Sigurd and Red Butte for PacifiCorp to meet its contracted transmission obligations by 2014. Redundancy to existing infrastructure would substantially improve the reliability of electrical service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate emissions, impact soils, and occur across areas associated with geologic hazards, including earthquakes and landslides. Construction of access roads, work areas, and river and stream crossings could result in disturbance of riparian vegetation and deposition of fill into wetlands or waters of the United States. Project-related activities would affect Utah prairie dog, sage grouse, and southwestern willow flycatcher. The proposed routes would traverse mountains and intact landscapes impacting scenic quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110169, Volume I--888 pages, Volume II (Maps)--77 pages, June 3, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-UT-C010-2009-0048-EIS KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Fishlake National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16385331?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cedar City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Characterization of Indian fly ashes for use in bituminous construction AN - 921716999; 2012-023804 AB - Fly ashes from 14 different sources are characterized by test like grain size distribution, Rigden Voids (RV), Methylene Blue Value (MBV), X-ray Diffractometer (XRD), Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) and based on similar physical and chemical characteristics they are divided into 4 groups. These fly ashes alongwith conventionally used stone dust are used as filler in bituminous concrete mixes in different proportions. The mix properties like stability, optimum binder content, indirect tensile strength, tensile strength ratio, retained stability are evaluated and compared. The results show that all fly ashes are good fillers and can be used in bituminous construction up to 7 percent. The fly ash group rich in Calcium Oxide gave better results. However, properties of mixes with fly ash of all groups are superior to those with stone dust filler. JF - Highway Research Journal AU - Sharma, Vishal AU - Chandra, Satish Y1 - 2011/06// PY - 2011 DA - June 2011 SP - 1 EP - 11 PB - Indian Roads Congress. Highway Research Board, New Delhi VL - 4 IS - 1 KW - X-ray diffraction data KW - clastic sediments KW - characterization KW - mechanical properties KW - tensile strength KW - concrete KW - India KW - bitumens KW - ash KW - Indian Peninsula KW - mixing KW - dust KW - sediments KW - Asia KW - SEM data KW - roads KW - construction materials KW - 30:Engineering geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/921716999?accountid=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=Highway+Research+Journal&rft.atitle=Characterization+of+Indian+fly+ashes+for+use+in+bituminous+construction&rft.au=Sharma%2C+Vishal%3BChandra%2C+Satish&rft.aulast=Sharma&rft.aufirst=Vishal&rft.date=2011-06-01&rft.volume=4&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=1&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Highway+Research+Journal&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 19 N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 8 tables N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - #07191 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - ash; Asia; bitumens; characterization; clastic sediments; concrete; construction materials; dust; India; Indian Peninsula; mechanical properties; mixing; roads; sediments; SEM data; tensile strength; X-ray diffraction data ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Risk Assessment of Success Dam, California: Earthquake Induced Potential Failure Modes AN - 907172707; 15378482 AB - Seismic deficiency of Success Dam, California has been determined and the need of remediation for improving the performance of the dam under earthquake loading has been identified. Consequently, the dam is currently operated under reservoir pool elevation restriction, pending rehabilitation implementation. Justification of operation restrictions and establishing the priority of remediation activities required preparation of a baseline risk assessment. This paper describes the estimation of the inputs to the estimation of the probability of failure (breach of the dam) from earthquake loading using an event tree risk model. The inputs that are described include earthquake loading, liquefaction and deformation analysis and the development of the system response probability relationships for above core erosion, seepage erosion through cracks and tower induced failure modes. Two companion papers describe the potential failure modes related to flood events (Anderson et al 2011)and the overall risk assessment and justification of operation restrictions (Bowles et al 2011). JF - Reston, VA: ASCE Proceedings of Georisk 2011, June 26.28, 2011, Atlanta, Georgia, d 20110000 AU - Ruthford, M AU - Perlea, V AU - Serafini, D AU - Beaty, M AU - Anderson, L AU - Bowles, D AD - US Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District, 1325 J Street, Sacramento, CA 95814. Y1 - 2011/06// PY - 2011 DA - June 2011 SP - 923 EP - 930 PB - American Society of Civil Engineers KW - Risk Abstracts; Aqualine Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources KW - Geohazards KW - Risk management KW - Dam failures KW - California KW - Earthquakes KW - Risk assessment KW - Reservoir KW - Bioremediation KW - Liquefaction KW - Risks KW - Assessments KW - Dams KW - Floods KW - Cracks KW - USA, California KW - Seepages KW - Reservoirs KW - Deformation KW - Earthquake loading KW - Dam Failure KW - deformation KW - Risk KW - Erosion KW - Remediation KW - Seismic activity KW - USA, Georgia, Atlanta KW - seepages KW - SW 5010:Network design KW - AQ 00007:Industrial Effluents KW - R2 23030:Natural hazards KW - Q2 09123:Conservation UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/907172707?accountid=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=Reston%2C+VA%3A+ASCE+Proceedings+of+Georisk+2011%2C+June+26.28%2C+2011%2C+Atlanta%2C+Georgia+%7Cd+20110000&rft.atitle=Risk+Assessment+of+Success+Dam%2C+California%3A+Earthquake+Induced+Potential+Failure+Modes&rft.au=Ruthford%2C+M%3BPerlea%2C+V%3BSerafini%2C+D%3BBeaty%2C+M%3BAnderson%2C+L%3BBowles%2C+D&rft.aulast=Ruthford&rft.aufirst=M&rft.date=2011-06-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=923&rft.isbn=9780784411834&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Reston%2C+VA%3A+ASCE+Proceedings+of+Georisk+2011%2C+June+26.28%2C+2011%2C+Atlanta%2C+Georgia+%7Cd+20110000&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/10.1061%2F41183%28418%2999 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - Last updated - 2017-02-15 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Earthquakes; Reservoir; Earthquake loading; Remediation; Liquefaction; Seepages; Risks; Deformation; Risk assessment; Erosion; Bioremediation; Floods; Seismic activity; seepages; deformation; Reservoirs; Risk; Assessments; Dams; Dam Failure; Cracks; USA, Georgia, Atlanta; USA, California DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/41183(418)99 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - The Practical Application of Risk Assessment to Dam Safety AN - 907167871; 15378389 AB - The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) is responsible for about 370 high- and significant-hazard storage dams and dikes which form a major part of the water resources infrastructure for the western United States, including such icons as Hoover and Grand Coulee Dams. To better manage this inventory of ageing dams with limited resources, Reclamation began using comprehensive risk assessment as the primary tool for dam safety decision-making in the mid-1990's. This paper describes the basic building blocks used in Reclamation dam safety risk analyses and how they are assembled to assess risks. The results of such risk analyses are used to set priorities for additional study or risk reduction actions using Reclamation's public protection guidelines, which are also discussed. JF - Reston, VA: ASCE Proceedings of Georisk 2011, June 26.28, 2011, Atlanta, Georgia, d 20110000 AU - Scott, Gregg A AD - Lead Civil Engineer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 12300 W. Dakota Ave., Lakewood, CO 80228, (Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, CO). Y1 - 2011/06// PY - 2011 DA - June 2011 SP - 129 EP - 168 PB - American Society of Civil Engineers KW - Aqualine Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Risk Abstracts KW - Dam safety KW - Geohazards KW - Risk management KW - Risk assessment KW - Resource management KW - reclamation KW - Aging KW - Water resources KW - Risks KW - risk reduction KW - Assessments KW - guidelines KW - Dams KW - Land Reclamation KW - Risk analysis KW - Safety KW - Protection KW - Buildings KW - Reclamation KW - Storage KW - Risk KW - USA KW - USA, Georgia, Atlanta KW - Standards KW - infrastructure KW - Water Resources KW - SW 5010:Network design KW - AQ 00006:Sewage KW - Q2 09388:Ocean operations and safety KW - R2 23010:General: Models, forecasting UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/907167871?accountid=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=Reston%2C+VA%3A+ASCE+Proceedings+of+Georisk+2011%2C+June+26.28%2C+2011%2C+Atlanta%2C+Georgia+%7Cd+20110000&rft.atitle=The+Practical+Application+of+Risk+Assessment+to+Dam+Safety&rft.au=Scott%2C+Gregg+A&rft.aulast=Scott&rft.aufirst=Gregg&rft.date=2011-06-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=129&rft.isbn=9780784411834&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Reston%2C+VA%3A+ASCE+Proceedings+of+Georisk+2011%2C+June+26.28%2C+2011%2C+Atlanta%2C+Georgia+%7Cd+20110000&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/10.1061%2F41183%28418%296 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - Last updated - 2017-02-15 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Resource management; Dams; Aging; Water resources; Risks; Reclamation; Storage; Risk assessment; risk reduction; Risk analysis; guidelines; reclamation; infrastructure; Risk; Assessments; Safety; Protection; Standards; Land Reclamation; Buildings; Water Resources; USA; USA, Georgia, Atlanta DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/41183(418)6 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Impact of Non-Analytical Factors in Geotechnical Risk Assessment of Levees AN - 907165968; 15378500 AB - This paper provides information on the impact of vegetation, rodents' activity, encroachments, utility penetration and riverbank and levee erosion on the performance of the levee system protecting the City of Sacramento, California. A geotechnical risk and reliability study was performed on the levees along the Sacramento River and tributaries to determine the risk of a poor performance of the existing levees. Seepage through the levee foundation and the slope stability were determined to be the major factors of poor performance for the levee system. Fragility curves estimating probability of poor performance of the levee system for different river stages were obtained by combining the analytically obtained fragility curves for seepage and slope stability with judgmental fragility for the other factors. This paper presents the example of a judgmental curve as concluded by an expert elicitation panel regarding the impact of non-analytical factors on the geotechnical performance of the levee system protecting the Sacramento area. The performance curves were used only for an economical evaluation of the levee, to determine the federal interest in the project, not for the design of the of the flood control system. JF - Reston, VA: ASCE Proceedings of Georisk 2011, June 26.28, 2011, Atlanta, Georgia, d 20110000 AU - Perlea, Mary AU - Ketchum, Edward AD - US Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District, 1325 J Street, Sacramento, CA 95814. Y1 - 2011/06// PY - 2011 DA - June 2011 SP - 1073 EP - 1081 PB - American Society of Civil Engineers KW - Aqualine Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Risk Abstracts KW - Geohazards KW - Risk management KW - Levees and dikes KW - California KW - Risk assessment KW - Flood control KW - Freshwater KW - Seepage KW - Risks KW - Evaluation KW - river banks KW - USA, California, Sacramento R. KW - Economics KW - Seepages KW - Slope Stability KW - Tributaries KW - Rodents KW - Rivers KW - USA, California, Sacramento KW - Levees KW - River discharge KW - Vegetation KW - Coastal zone management KW - Risk KW - Performance Evaluation KW - Erosion KW - Nature conservation KW - USA, Georgia, Atlanta KW - seepages KW - Slope stability KW - rodents KW - AQ 00007:Industrial Effluents KW - SW 5080:Evaluation, processing and publication KW - R2 23070:Economics, organization KW - Q2 09124:Coastal zone management UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/907165968?accountid=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=Reston%2C+VA%3A+ASCE+Proceedings+of+Georisk+2011%2C+June+26.28%2C+2011%2C+Atlanta%2C+Georgia+%7Cd+20110000&rft.atitle=Impact+of+Non-Analytical+Factors+in+Geotechnical+Risk+Assessment+of+Levees&rft.au=Perlea%2C+Mary%3BKetchum%2C+Edward&rft.aulast=Perlea&rft.aufirst=Mary&rft.date=2011-06-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=1073&rft.isbn=9780784411834&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Reston%2C+VA%3A+ASCE+Proceedings+of+Georisk+2011%2C+June+26.28%2C+2011%2C+Atlanta%2C+Georgia+%7Cd+20110000&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/10.1061%2F41183%28418%29117 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - Last updated - 2017-02-15 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Flood control; River discharge; Nature conservation; Levees; Slope stability; Seepages; Tributaries; Risks; Coastal zone management; Risk assessment; Erosion; river banks; Economics; Vegetation; seepages; rodents; Evaluation; Rivers; Risk; Performance Evaluation; Seepage; Slope Stability; Rodents; USA, California, Sacramento R.; USA, California, Sacramento; USA, Georgia, Atlanta; Freshwater DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/41183(418)117 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Comparison of Lead Dissolution from Antique and Modern Ammunition AN - 896234702; 15135898 AB - Through space revitalization, small arms firing ranges of older bases have and may become incorporated into residential areas of active bases with possible human exposure to lead. Bullet dissolution and scanning electron microscopy studies compared weathering of lead from antique small arms ammunition (the 45/70-405 Government) and modern ammunition (5.56 mm). The almost pure lead in the 45/70 bullet resulted in a round that has a lower corrosion and dissolution rate than the lead/antimony alloy of modern ammunition. It is less likely that lead will migrate from the older ranges into the surrounding environment either with suspended solids carried by surface water runoff or through leaching into the underlying soil and groundwater. JF - Environmental Forensics AU - Larson, Steven L AU - Martin, WAndy AU - Griggs, Christopher S AU - Thompson, Michelle AU - Nestler, Catherine C AD - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center-Environmental Laboratory, Vicksburg, MS Y1 - 2011/06// PY - 2011 DA - Jun 2011 SP - 149 EP - 155 PB - Taylor & Francis Group Ltd., 2 Park Square Oxford OX14 4RN UK VL - 12 IS - 2 SN - 1527-5922, 1527-5922 KW - Environmental Engineering Abstracts (EN); Corrosion Abstracts (CO); CSA / ASCE Civil Engineering Abstracts (CE) UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896234702?accountid=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=Environmental+Forensics&rft.atitle=Comparison+of+Lead+Dissolution+from+Antique+and+Modern+Ammunition&rft.au=Larson%2C+Steven+L%3BMartin%2C+WAndy%3BGriggs%2C+Christopher+S%3BThompson%2C+Michelle%3BNestler%2C+Catherine+C&rft.aulast=Larson&rft.aufirst=Steven&rft.date=2011-06-01&rft.volume=12&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=149&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Environmental+Forensics&rft.issn=15275922&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080%2F15275922.2011.572952 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - Last updated - 2011-11-10 DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15275922.2011.572952 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Nymphal Cicadas (Hemiptera: Cicadidae) as a Prey Item of Shovelnose Sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus platorynchus) in the Lower Mississippi River AN - 893279636; 15466141 AB - Stomach contents of 3 Scaphirhynchus platorynchus (Shovelnose Sturgeon) collected in the Lower Mississippi River in January 2010 yielded 44 specimens of cicada nymphs, Diceroprocta sp. The fish were collected during a sudden rise in water level. The floodplain-dwelling cicada were likely washed out of their terrestrial habitat and into the river, where opportunistic sturgeon were foraging. JF - Southeastern Naturalist AU - Harrison, Audrey B AU - George, Steven G AU - Slack, William T Y1 - 2011/06// PY - 2011 DA - Jun 2011 SP - 371 EP - 373 PB - Humboldt Field Research Institute, PO Box 9 Steuben ME 04680-0009 United States VL - 10 IS - 2 SN - 1528-7092, 1528-7092 KW - Aqualine Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts; ASFA 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources; Entomology Abstracts; Ecology Abstracts KW - Nymphs KW - Food organisms KW - Freshwater KW - Water levels KW - Acipenser KW - Cicadidae KW - Sturgeon KW - Scaphirhynchus platorynchus KW - Prey KW - Rivers KW - Water Level KW - Habitat KW - Hemiptera KW - Flood Plains KW - Stomach content KW - Foraging behaviour KW - North America, Mississippi R. KW - Aquatic Habitats KW - Fish KW - Taxonomy KW - Stomach KW - New species KW - AQ 00001:Water Resources and Supplies KW - Z 05340:Ecology and Behavior KW - SW 0835:Streamflow and runoff KW - D 04040:Ecosystem and Ecology Studies KW - Q1 08567:Fishery oceanography and limnology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/893279636?accountid=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=Southeastern+Naturalist&rft.atitle=Nymphal+Cicadas+%28Hemiptera%3A+Cicadidae%29+as+a+Prey+Item+of+Shovelnose+Sturgeon+%28Scaphirhynchus+platorynchus%29+in+the+Lower+Mississippi+River&rft.au=Harrison%2C+Audrey+B%3BGeorge%2C+Steven+G%3BSlack%2C+William+T&rft.aulast=Harrison&rft.aufirst=Audrey&rft.date=2011-06-01&rft.volume=10&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=371&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Southeastern+Naturalist&rft.issn=15287092&rft_id=info:doi/10.1656%2F058.010.0216 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - Number of references - 1 N1 - Last updated - 2014-05-02 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Rivers; Water levels; Nymphs; Food organisms; Foraging behaviour; Stomach content; Taxonomy; New species; Habitat; Stomach; Prey; Flood Plains; Aquatic Habitats; Fish; Sturgeon; Water Level; Acipenser; Cicadidae; Scaphirhynchus platorynchus; Hemiptera; North America, Mississippi R.; Freshwater DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1656/058.010.0216 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Insect herbivores of water stargrass (Heteranthera dubia) in the US AN - 888110701; 15582293 AB - We examined insect herbivores associated with Heteranthera dubia from surveys conducted from 2006 to 2009. Plants were collected, invertebrates were removed, and signs of feeding damage were noted. Herbivores were quantified, and geographic regions were compared based on herbivore density, taxa richness, evenness, and diversity. The greatest density of herbivores occurred at Parker Pond, Washington, which was largely influenced by an abundance of aphids (Rhopalosiphum spp.). Density, richness, and evenness were not significantly different among regions. At least 23 potential insect herbivores were recorded from 15 sites in Texas, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Vermont, and New York. Of these, five taxa were collected from the order Lepidoptera, one from Coleoptera, six from Diptera, and at least 11 from Trichoptera. The majority of the herbivores were generalists; several had unknown diets. Damage observed to H. dubia included extensive tunneling in the stems of the plant and, in some cases, substantial chewing damage to the leaves. JF - Journal of Freshwater Ecology AU - Harms, N AU - Grodowitz, M AU - Kennedy, J AD - US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180, USA, nathan.e.harms@usace.army.mil Y1 - 2011/06// PY - 2011 DA - Jun 2011 SP - 185 EP - 194 VL - 26 IS - 2 SN - 0270-5060, 0270-5060 KW - Aqualine Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts; Entomology Abstracts; ASFA 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources; Ecology Abstracts KW - Aphididae KW - Abundance KW - Population density KW - Invertebrates KW - Freshwater KW - USA, Wisconsin KW - Rhopalosiphum KW - Ponds KW - Lepidoptera KW - USA, Washington KW - Heteranthera dubia KW - Tunneling KW - Aquatic insects KW - Trichoptera KW - Diets KW - Damage KW - Feeding KW - Caddisflies KW - Chewing KW - Coleoptera KW - Density KW - Leaves KW - Surveys KW - Stems KW - USA, Minnesota KW - Insects KW - USA, New York KW - Herbivores KW - Species diversity KW - USA, Texas KW - USA, Vermont KW - Diptera KW - Freshwater ecology KW - SW 5010:Network design KW - Z 05340:Ecology and Behavior KW - D 04040:Ecosystem and Ecology Studies KW - AQ 00008:Effects of Pollution KW - Q1 08604:Stock assessment and management UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888110701?accountid=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+Freshwater+Ecology&rft.atitle=Insect+herbivores+of+water+stargrass+%28Heteranthera+dubia%29+in+the+US&rft.au=Harms%2C+N%3BGrodowitz%2C+M%3BKennedy%2C+J&rft.aulast=Harms&rft.aufirst=N&rft.date=2011-06-01&rft.volume=26&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=185&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Freshwater+Ecology&rft.issn=02705060&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080%2F02705060.2011.554217 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - Last updated - 2014-05-02 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Herbivores; Species diversity; Population density; Aquatic insects; Freshwater ecology; Ponds; Diets; Feeding; Chewing; Abundance; Leaves; Stems; Damage; Caddisflies; Density; Surveys; Invertebrates; Tunneling; Insects; Coleoptera; Aphididae; Heteranthera dubia; Rhopalosiphum; Diptera; Trichoptera; Lepidoptera; USA, Washington; USA, Texas; USA, Wisconsin; USA, Vermont; USA, Minnesota; USA, New York; Freshwater DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02705060.2011.554217 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Solid phase considerations for the environmental fate of nitrobenzene and triazine munition constituents in soil AN - 886910852; 2011-075060 AB - This paper focuses on the chemistry of DoD-relevant organic contaminants in soil. Most of the work presented here is based on the author's experience with the environmental fate of the munition constituents, TNT and RDX, for DoD related issues. The principles and challenges of understanding the transport of nitrobenzene and triazine compounds in the environment are captured. In this work, disparities in the current scientific literature with respect to the construction of sorption experiments are discussed, in terms of soil sample handling, dispersion state of the soil, and sorption hysteresis/equilibrium. Here is discussed the concept of environmentally formulated compounds and its implications toward reduced accuracy of predicting the environmental fate of munition constituents. Also, further research linking simple but oft-forgotten basic concepts of soil fertility to the transport and environmental fate of munition constituents are discussed. JF - Applied Geochemistry AU - Chappell, Mark A AU - Price, Cynthia L AU - Miller, Lesley F A2 - Anderson, Suzanne P. A2 - Gislason, Sigurdur Reynir Y1 - 2011/06// PY - 2011 DA - June 2011 SP - S330 EP - S333 PB - Elsevier, Oxford-New York-Beijing VL - 26 IS - Suppl. SN - 0883-2927, 0883-2927 KW - soils KW - experimental studies KW - dispersivity KW - pollutants KW - biochemistry KW - statistical analysis KW - prediction KW - pollution KW - models KW - hydration KW - triazines KW - organic compounds KW - saturation KW - soil pollution KW - nitrobenzene KW - military facilities KW - geochemistry KW - regression analysis KW - 22:Environmental geology KW - 02A:General geochemistry UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/886910852?accountid=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=Applied+Geochemistry&rft.atitle=Solid+phase+considerations+for+the+environmental+fate+of+nitrobenzene+and+triazine+munition+constituents+in+soil&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/08832927 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - Ninth international symposium on the Geochemistry of the Earth's surface N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data from CAPCAS, Elsevier Scientific Publishers, Amsterdam, Netherlands N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 18 N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 1 table N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - biochemistry; dispersivity; experimental studies; geochemistry; hydration; military facilities; models; nitrobenzene; organic compounds; pollutants; pollution; prediction; regression analysis; saturation; soil pollution; soils; statistical analysis; triazines DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeochem.2011.03.067 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - The physical dipole model and polarizability for magnetostatic object parameter estimation AN - 881452769; 2011-062890 AB - The physical dipole is the next simplest model of a magnetic object beyond the point dipole model. The theory and analytical properties of the physical dipole are developed and explored, and compare favorably with alternative models, including limiting cases of prolate spheroids and other shapes. The general applicability of explicitly modeling the demagnetization properties of magnetic materials is critically reviewed, and reasons proffered to use the object polarizability instead, especially for the external field properties of most relevance. Neither the physical dipole model nor polarizability is currently used for magnetostatic parameter estimation of magnetic objects such as unexploded ordnance. It is recommended that their utility be further explored with field data. JF - Journal of Environmental & Engineering Geophysics AU - Furey, John S AU - Butler, Dwain K Y1 - 2011/06// PY - 2011 DA - June 2011 SP - 49 EP - 60 PB - Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society, Englewood, CO VL - 16 IS - 2 SN - 1083-1363, 1083-1363 KW - theoretical studies KW - demagnetization KW - metals KW - geophysical methods KW - magnetization KW - unexploded ordnance KW - paleomagnetism KW - applications KW - physical dipole model KW - magnetic field KW - magnetic properties KW - 20:Applied geophysics UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/881452769?accountid=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+Environmental+%26+Engineering+Geophysics&rft.atitle=The+physical+dipole+model+and+polarizability+for+magnetostatic+object+parameter+estimation&rft.au=Furey%2C+John+S%3BButler%2C+Dwain+K&rft.aulast=Furey&rft.aufirst=John&rft.date=2011-06-01&rft.volume=16&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=49&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Environmental+%26+Engineering+Geophysics&rft.issn=10831363&rft_id=info:doi/10.2113%2FJEEG16.2.49 L2 - http://jeeg.geoscienceworld.org/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Abstract, copyright, Environmental & Engineering Geophysical Society | Reference includes data from GeoScienceWorld, Alexandria, VA, United States N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 33 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - Document feature - illus. N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - applications; demagnetization; geophysical methods; magnetic field; magnetic properties; magnetization; metals; paleomagnetism; physical dipole model; theoretical studies; unexploded ordnance DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.2113/JEEG16.2.49 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Electrogenic capacity and community composition of anodic biofilms in soil-based bioelectrochemical systems AN - 876237360; 14885180 AB - Although a number of bacteria are known to be capable of generating an electrical current, the diversity of electrogenic bacteria in soils and the commonality across soil types is relatively unknown. Simple bioelectrochemical cells were constructed to measure the electrogenic capacity and community composition of bacteria originating on cell anodes from three biogeochemically distinct soil types. All three soils supported electrogenic activity, amounting to a maximum sustained current of 1.5-2.1mA over 55days. Analysis of fatty acids identified differences in microbial community composition between anode biofilms and far-field soil materials. Anode communities showed greater percentages of fatty acids indicative of Gram-negative bacteria and Actinomycetes. By analysis of anode biofilm genomic DNA via terminal-restriction fragment-length polymorphisms, commonalities in community composition across the three soil types were identified, specifically, the putative presence of bacterial species belonging to the alpha - and ss-Proteobacteria and the Firmicutes. Subsequent culture and isolation of bacteria from the anodes confirmed the presence of similar classes of bacteria. Results showed that, under saturated conditions, different soils can support electrogenic activity and that the bacterial communities that develop on the anodes share certain common inherent community traits. JF - Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology AU - Ringelberg, David B AU - Foley, Karen L AU - Reynolds, Charles M AD - US Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Center, Hanover, NH, USA, david.b.ringelberg@usace.army.mil PY - 2011 SP - 1805 EP - 1815 PB - Springer-Verlag, Heidelberger Platz 3 Berlin 14197 Germany VL - 90 IS - 5 SN - 0175-7598, 0175-7598 KW - Microbiology Abstracts A: Industrial & Applied Microbiology; Microbiology Abstracts B: Bacteriology; Biotechnology and Bioengineering Abstracts KW - Soil types KW - Cell culture KW - Firmicutes KW - Soil microorganisms KW - Community composition KW - Gram-negative bacteria KW - Anodes KW - Fatty acids KW - DNA KW - Biofilms KW - genomics KW - Actinomycetes KW - W 30950:Waste Treatment & Pollution Clean-up KW - A 01400:Soil Microbes UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876237360?accountid=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=Applied+Microbiology+and+Biotechnology&rft.atitle=Electrogenic+capacity+and+community+composition+of+anodic+biofilms+in+soil-based+bioelectrochemical+systems&rft.au=Ringelberg%2C+David+B%3BFoley%2C+Karen+L%3BReynolds%2C+Charles+M&rft.aulast=Ringelberg&rft.aufirst=David&rft.date=2011-06-01&rft.volume=90&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=1805&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Applied+Microbiology+and+Biotechnology&rft.issn=01757598&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007%2Fs00253-011-3264-9 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-01-06 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Soil types; Community composition; Gram-negative bacteria; Anodes; DNA; Fatty acids; Cell culture; genomics; Biofilms; Actinomycetes; Soil microorganisms; Firmicutes DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00253-011-3264-9 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Horizontal gene transfer (HGT) as a mechanism of disseminating RDX-degrading activity among Actinomycete bacteria AN - 876225409; 14888599 AB - Aims: Hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5,-triazine (RDX) is a cyclic nitramine explosive that is a major component in many high-explosive formulations and has been found as a contaminant of soil and groundwater. The RDX-degrading gene locus xplAB, located on pGKT2 in Gordonia sp. KTR9, is highly conserved among isolates from disparate geographical locations suggesting a horizontal gene transfer (HGT) event. It was our goal to determine whether Gordonia sp. KTR9 is capable of transferring pGKT2 and the associated RDX degradation ability to other bacteria. Methods and Results: We demonstrate the successful conjugal transfer of pGKT2 from Gordonia sp. KTR9 to Gordonia polyisoprenivorans, Rhodococcus jostii RHA1 and Nocardia sp. TW2. Through growth and RDX degradation studies, it was demonstrated that pGKT2 conferred to transconjugants the ability to degrade and utilize RDX as a nitrogen source. The inhibitory effect of exogenous inorganic nitrogen sources on RDX degradation in transconjugant strains was found to be strain specific. Conclusions: Plasmid pGKT2 can be transferred by conjugation, along with the ability to degrade RDX, to related bacteria, providing evidence of at least one mechanism for the dissemination and persistence of xplAB in the environment. Significance and Impact of Study: These results provide evidence of one mechanism for the environmental dissemination of xplAB and provide a framework for future field relevant bioremediation practices. JF - Journal of Applied Microbiology AU - Jung, C M AU - Crocker, F H AU - Eberly, JO AU - Indest, K J AD - Environmental Laboratory, US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS, USA Y1 - 2011/06// PY - 2011 DA - June 2011 SP - 1449 EP - 1459 PB - Wiley-Blackwell, 111 River Street Hoboken NJ 07030-5774 USA VL - 110 IS - 6 SN - 1364-5072, 1364-5072 KW - Microbiology Abstracts A: Industrial & Applied Microbiology; Genetics Abstracts; Microbiology Abstracts B: Bacteriology KW - Geographical distribution KW - Conjugation KW - Bioremediation KW - Biodegradation KW - Nitrogen sources KW - X chromosome KW - Plasmids KW - Rhodococcus KW - Soil pollution KW - Gene transfer KW - Ground water KW - Explosives KW - Contaminants KW - Gordonia KW - Nocardia KW - Actinomycetes KW - J 02320:Cell Biology KW - A 01320:Microbial Degradation KW - G 07770:Bacteria UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876225409?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Amicrobiologyb&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Applied+Microbiology&rft.atitle=Horizontal+gene+transfer+%28HGT%29+as+a+mechanism+of+disseminating+RDX-degrading+activity+among+Actinomycete+bacteria&rft.au=Jung%2C+C+M%3BCrocker%2C+F+H%3BEberly%2C+JO%3BIndest%2C+K+J&rft.aulast=Jung&rft.aufirst=C&rft.date=2011-06-01&rft.volume=110&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=1449&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Applied+Microbiology&rft.issn=13645072&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111%2Fj.1365-2672.2011.04995.x LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - Document feature - figure 5 N1 - Last updated - 2016-03-30 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Conjugation; Geographical distribution; Biodegradation; Bioremediation; Nitrogen sources; X chromosome; Plasmids; Soil pollution; Gene transfer; Ground water; Explosives; Contaminants; Actinomycetes; Rhodococcus; Nocardia; Gordonia DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2011.04995.x ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Lidar-assisted identification of an active fault near Truckee, California AN - 875014485; 2011-057078 AB - We use high-resolution (1.5-2.4 points/m (super 2) ) bare-earth airborne Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) imagery to identify, map, constrain, and visualize fault-related geomorphology in densely vegetated terrain surrounding Martis Creek Dam near Truckee, California. Bare-earth LiDAR imagery reveals a previously unrecognized and apparently youthful right-lateral strike-slip fault that exhibits laterally continuous tectonic geomorphic features over a 35-km-long zone. If these interpretations are correct, the fault, herein named the Polaris fault, may represent a significant seismic hazard to the greater Truckee-Lake Tahoe and Reno-Carson City regions. Three-dimensional modeling of an offset late Quaternary terrace riser indicates a minimum tectonic slip rate of 0.4+ or -0.1 mm/yr. Mapped fault patterns are fairly typical of regional patterns elsewhere in the northern Walker Lane and are in strong coherence with moderate magnitude historical seismicity of the immediate area, as well as the current regional stress regime. Based on a range of surface-rupture lengths and depths to the base of the seismogenic zone, we estimate a maximum earthquake magnitude (M) for the Polaris fault to be between 6.4 and 6.9. JF - Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America AU - Hunter, L E AU - Howle, J F AU - Rose, R S AU - Bawden, G W Y1 - 2011/06// PY - 2011 DA - June 2011 SP - 1162 EP - 1181 PB - Seismological Society of America, Berkeley, CA VL - 101 IS - 3 SN - 0037-1106, 0037-1106 KW - United States KW - high-resolution methods KW - laser methods KW - geologic hazards KW - magnitude KW - radar methods KW - Truckee California KW - Nevada County California KW - California KW - Martis Creek Dam KW - lidar methods KW - seismicity KW - earthquake prediction KW - seismic risk KW - natural hazards KW - risk assessment KW - Polaris Fault KW - active faults KW - earthquakes KW - faults KW - 19:Seismology KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/875014485?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Bulletin+of+the+Seismological+Society+of+America&rft.atitle=Lidar-assisted+identification+of+an+active+fault+near+Truckee%2C+California&rft.au=Hunter%2C+L+E%3BHowle%2C+J+F%3BRose%2C+R+S%3BBawden%2C+G+W&rft.aulast=Hunter&rft.aufirst=L&rft.date=2011-06-01&rft.volume=101&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=1162&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Bulletin+of+the+Seismological+Society+of+America&rft.issn=00371106&rft_id=info:doi/10.1785%2F0120090261 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Abstract, Copyright, Seismological Society of America | Reference includes data from GeoScienceWorld, Alexandria, VA, United States N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 67 N1 - PubXState - CA N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 2 tables, geol. sketch maps N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - active faults; California; earthquake prediction; earthquakes; faults; geologic hazards; high-resolution methods; laser methods; lidar methods; magnitude; Martis Creek Dam; natural hazards; Nevada County California; Polaris Fault; radar methods; risk assessment; seismic risk; seismicity; Truckee California; United States DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1785/0120090261 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Post-Katrina Land Change Assessment along the South Shore of Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana, USA: A Four-Year Perspective, 2005-2009 AN - 1285084662; 15611286 AB - In response to hurricane Katrina, image acquisition was extensive to survey damage caused by wind, flood, and storm surge. Less prevalent, however, is the use of remotely sensed imagery and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) for assessment of long-term recovery. Building upon a previous study, the current work extends further into the recovery phase of the disaster management cycle and assesses land cover, elevation, and volume changes in a 20 square kilometer area along the south shore of Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana, 2005 to 2009. Using an innovative hyperspectral and lidar fusion approach to develop basic land cover classification as well as Digital Elevation Models (DEMs), change detection revealed that some negative trends in land cover and net volume estimates immediately following the disaster in 2005 to 2007 may be either losing pace or reversing for more positive signs of recovery in 2007 to 2009. JF - Reston, VA: ASCE Proceedings of the 2011 Solutions to Coastal Disasters Conference, Anchorage, Alaska, June 26 to June 29, 2011, d 20110000 AU - Reif, Molly K AU - Macon, Christopher L AU - Wozencraft, Jennifer M AD - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Environmental Laboratory, Joint Airborne Lidar Bathymetry Technical Center of expertise, 7225 Stennis Airport Road, Suite 100, Kiln, MS, 39556, USA. Y1 - 2011/06// PY - 2011 DA - June 2011 SP - 713 EP - 727 PB - American Society of Civil Engineers KW - Aqualine Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources KW - Hurricanes KW - Louisiana KW - Land use KW - ASW, USA, Louisiana KW - Shores KW - Lakes KW - Assessments KW - Classification KW - Floods KW - Wind KW - Geographical Information Systems KW - Disasters KW - INE, USA, Alaska KW - ASW, USA, Louisiana, Pontchartrain L. KW - Storm surges KW - Elevation KW - LIDAR KW - USA, Alaska, Anchorage KW - AQ 00006:Sewage KW - SW 5040:Data acquisition KW - Q2 09171:Dynamics of lakes and rivers KW - Q5 08502:Methods and instruments UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1285084662?accountid=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=Reston%2C+VA%3A+ASCE+Proceedings+of+the+2011+Solutions+to+Coastal+Disasters+Conference%2C+Anchorage%2C+Alaska%2C+June+26+to+June+29%2C+2011+%7Cd+20110000&rft.atitle=Post-Katrina+Land+Change+Assessment+along+the+South+Shore+of+Lake+Pontchartrain%2C+Louisiana%2C+USA%3A+A+Four-Year+Perspective%2C+2005-2009&rft.au=Reif%2C+Molly+K%3BMacon%2C+Christopher+L%3BWozencraft%2C+Jennifer+M&rft.aulast=Reif&rft.aufirst=Molly&rft.date=2011-06-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=713&rft.isbn=9780784411858&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Reston%2C+VA%3A+ASCE+Proceedings+of+the+2011+Solutions+to+Coastal+Disasters+Conference%2C+Anchorage%2C+Alaska%2C+June+26+to+June+29%2C+2011+%7Cd+20110000&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/10.1061%2F41185%28417%2962 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2013-02-01 N1 - Last updated - 2017-02-15 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Hurricanes; Storm surges; Classification; Disasters; LIDAR; Lakes; Assessments; Floods; Elevation; Shores; Wind; Geographical Information Systems; ASW, USA, Louisiana; ASW, USA, Louisiana, Pontchartrain L.; INE, USA, Alaska; USA, Alaska, Anchorage DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/41185(417)62 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 47 of 51] T2 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876255726; 14919-8_0047 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements on State Route 91 (SR-91) and Interstate 15 (I-15) in Riverside and Orange counties, California are proposed. SR-91 is the only major highway that provides the home-to-work connection for Riverside and San Bernardino County residents working in Orange and Los Angeles Counties. It is currently used by more than 280,000 vehicles per day at the Orange/Riverside County line and travel speeds are well below 30 miles per hour (mph) during peak travel periods. Traffic volumes are expected to increase by 50 percent by 2035. The SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project (CIP) would widen the existing highway from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange in the cities of Anaheim and Yorba Linda in Orange County to Pierce Street in the City of Riverside in Riverside County and improve I-15 in Riverside County between the I-15/Cajalco Road interchange and the I-15/Hidden Valley Parkway interchange in the City of Corona. Currently, SR-91 has four general purpose lanes in each direction, with those lanes varying in width from 11 to 12 feet from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange to the SR-91/ I-15 interchange, and three 12-foot-wide lanes in each direction from the SR-91/I-15 interchange to Pierce Street. In addition, there are two tolled express lanes and one high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction. The tolled express lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin in Orange County west of the SR-91/SR-55 interchange and end at the Orange/Riverside County line. The two HOV lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin where the tolled express lanes end just east of the Orange/Riverside County line and extend to Mary Street in the City of Riverside. This draft EIS evaluates two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. Both build alternatives would add one general purpose lane in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15 and would include improvements to I-15 between the Cajalco Road interchange and the Hidden Valley Parkway interchange. The two build alternatives would provide auxiliary lanes or collector-distributor roads at interchanges and would modify the existing interchange geometrics to improve traffic operations. The build alternatives would also upgrade existing SR-91 to standard shoulder, lane, and buffer widths where those upgrades can be accommodated. Under Alternative 1, the existing HOV facilities and tolled express lanes would be maintained in their current configurations. Alternative 2, which is the locally preferred alternative, would provide two tolled express lanes in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15. The existing HOV and express lanes would be incorporated into these two tolled express lanes. East of I-15, the HOV lanes in Alternative 1 and the tolled express lanes in Alternative 2 would transition to the existing HOV and general purpose lanes at Mary Street. Alternative 1 would provide one median HOV lane in each direction on I-15 between SR-91 and Ontario Avenue. Alternative 2 would provide one median tolled express lane in each direction on I-15 between Hidden Valley Parkway and Cajalco Road. Local access at the existing interchanges is expected to be maintained except at West Grand Boulevard, where the existing half-diamond interchange ramps would be replaced with improved local connectivity to the Lincoln Avenue interchange. Implementation of the project is proposed in phases over a 20-year period and the total costs of Alternatives 1 and 2 are estimated at $990 million to $1.0 billion and $1.35 billion to $1.43 billion, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the movement of vehicles and goods within the corridor to more effectively serve existing and future travel demand between and within Riverside and Orange Counties. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed improvements would permanently convert 17 to 20 acres of farmland and grazing land, convert two to three acres of federal wetlands, remove two to three acres of habitat for the California gnatcatcher, impact 27 to 35 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat, and increase impervious surface area by 120 to 171 acres. New right-of-way would require acquisition of 93 to 161 residences and 110 to 275 businesses. Noise levels in 2035 would exceed 75 decibels at an additional 34 to 41 locations. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110158, Volume I--1,459 pages and maps, Volume II (Appendices)--503 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 47 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255726?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - California Department of Transportation, San Bernardino, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 46 of 51] T2 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876255720; 14919-8_0046 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements on State Route 91 (SR-91) and Interstate 15 (I-15) in Riverside and Orange counties, California are proposed. SR-91 is the only major highway that provides the home-to-work connection for Riverside and San Bernardino County residents working in Orange and Los Angeles Counties. It is currently used by more than 280,000 vehicles per day at the Orange/Riverside County line and travel speeds are well below 30 miles per hour (mph) during peak travel periods. Traffic volumes are expected to increase by 50 percent by 2035. The SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project (CIP) would widen the existing highway from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange in the cities of Anaheim and Yorba Linda in Orange County to Pierce Street in the City of Riverside in Riverside County and improve I-15 in Riverside County between the I-15/Cajalco Road interchange and the I-15/Hidden Valley Parkway interchange in the City of Corona. Currently, SR-91 has four general purpose lanes in each direction, with those lanes varying in width from 11 to 12 feet from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange to the SR-91/ I-15 interchange, and three 12-foot-wide lanes in each direction from the SR-91/I-15 interchange to Pierce Street. In addition, there are two tolled express lanes and one high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction. The tolled express lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin in Orange County west of the SR-91/SR-55 interchange and end at the Orange/Riverside County line. The two HOV lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin where the tolled express lanes end just east of the Orange/Riverside County line and extend to Mary Street in the City of Riverside. This draft EIS evaluates two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. Both build alternatives would add one general purpose lane in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15 and would include improvements to I-15 between the Cajalco Road interchange and the Hidden Valley Parkway interchange. The two build alternatives would provide auxiliary lanes or collector-distributor roads at interchanges and would modify the existing interchange geometrics to improve traffic operations. The build alternatives would also upgrade existing SR-91 to standard shoulder, lane, and buffer widths where those upgrades can be accommodated. Under Alternative 1, the existing HOV facilities and tolled express lanes would be maintained in their current configurations. Alternative 2, which is the locally preferred alternative, would provide two tolled express lanes in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15. The existing HOV and express lanes would be incorporated into these two tolled express lanes. East of I-15, the HOV lanes in Alternative 1 and the tolled express lanes in Alternative 2 would transition to the existing HOV and general purpose lanes at Mary Street. Alternative 1 would provide one median HOV lane in each direction on I-15 between SR-91 and Ontario Avenue. Alternative 2 would provide one median tolled express lane in each direction on I-15 between Hidden Valley Parkway and Cajalco Road. Local access at the existing interchanges is expected to be maintained except at West Grand Boulevard, where the existing half-diamond interchange ramps would be replaced with improved local connectivity to the Lincoln Avenue interchange. Implementation of the project is proposed in phases over a 20-year period and the total costs of Alternatives 1 and 2 are estimated at $990 million to $1.0 billion and $1.35 billion to $1.43 billion, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the movement of vehicles and goods within the corridor to more effectively serve existing and future travel demand between and within Riverside and Orange Counties. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed improvements would permanently convert 17 to 20 acres of farmland and grazing land, convert two to three acres of federal wetlands, remove two to three acres of habitat for the California gnatcatcher, impact 27 to 35 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat, and increase impervious surface area by 120 to 171 acres. New right-of-way would require acquisition of 93 to 161 residences and 110 to 275 businesses. Noise levels in 2035 would exceed 75 decibels at an additional 34 to 41 locations. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110158, Volume I--1,459 pages and maps, Volume II (Appendices)--503 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 46 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255720?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - California Department of Transportation, San Bernardino, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 39 of 51] T2 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876255716; 14919-8_0039 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements on State Route 91 (SR-91) and Interstate 15 (I-15) in Riverside and Orange counties, California are proposed. SR-91 is the only major highway that provides the home-to-work connection for Riverside and San Bernardino County residents working in Orange and Los Angeles Counties. It is currently used by more than 280,000 vehicles per day at the Orange/Riverside County line and travel speeds are well below 30 miles per hour (mph) during peak travel periods. Traffic volumes are expected to increase by 50 percent by 2035. The SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project (CIP) would widen the existing highway from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange in the cities of Anaheim and Yorba Linda in Orange County to Pierce Street in the City of Riverside in Riverside County and improve I-15 in Riverside County between the I-15/Cajalco Road interchange and the I-15/Hidden Valley Parkway interchange in the City of Corona. Currently, SR-91 has four general purpose lanes in each direction, with those lanes varying in width from 11 to 12 feet from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange to the SR-91/ I-15 interchange, and three 12-foot-wide lanes in each direction from the SR-91/I-15 interchange to Pierce Street. In addition, there are two tolled express lanes and one high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction. The tolled express lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin in Orange County west of the SR-91/SR-55 interchange and end at the Orange/Riverside County line. The two HOV lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin where the tolled express lanes end just east of the Orange/Riverside County line and extend to Mary Street in the City of Riverside. This draft EIS evaluates two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. Both build alternatives would add one general purpose lane in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15 and would include improvements to I-15 between the Cajalco Road interchange and the Hidden Valley Parkway interchange. The two build alternatives would provide auxiliary lanes or collector-distributor roads at interchanges and would modify the existing interchange geometrics to improve traffic operations. The build alternatives would also upgrade existing SR-91 to standard shoulder, lane, and buffer widths where those upgrades can be accommodated. Under Alternative 1, the existing HOV facilities and tolled express lanes would be maintained in their current configurations. Alternative 2, which is the locally preferred alternative, would provide two tolled express lanes in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15. The existing HOV and express lanes would be incorporated into these two tolled express lanes. East of I-15, the HOV lanes in Alternative 1 and the tolled express lanes in Alternative 2 would transition to the existing HOV and general purpose lanes at Mary Street. Alternative 1 would provide one median HOV lane in each direction on I-15 between SR-91 and Ontario Avenue. Alternative 2 would provide one median tolled express lane in each direction on I-15 between Hidden Valley Parkway and Cajalco Road. Local access at the existing interchanges is expected to be maintained except at West Grand Boulevard, where the existing half-diamond interchange ramps would be replaced with improved local connectivity to the Lincoln Avenue interchange. Implementation of the project is proposed in phases over a 20-year period and the total costs of Alternatives 1 and 2 are estimated at $990 million to $1.0 billion and $1.35 billion to $1.43 billion, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the movement of vehicles and goods within the corridor to more effectively serve existing and future travel demand between and within Riverside and Orange Counties. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed improvements would permanently convert 17 to 20 acres of farmland and grazing land, convert two to three acres of federal wetlands, remove two to three acres of habitat for the California gnatcatcher, impact 27 to 35 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat, and increase impervious surface area by 120 to 171 acres. New right-of-way would require acquisition of 93 to 161 residences and 110 to 275 businesses. Noise levels in 2035 would exceed 75 decibels at an additional 34 to 41 locations. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110158, Volume I--1,459 pages and maps, Volume II (Appendices)--503 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 39 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255716?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - California Department of Transportation, San Bernardino, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 6 of 19] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876254677; 14921-0_0006 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,510 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the city of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. The proposed project would involve construction of 10,210 residential units at various densities on 1,477 acres; 362.8 acres designated for commercial and industrial use, including a regional shopping center; public/quasi-public uses; elementary, middle, and high schools on 179.3 acres; 121.7 acres of community and neighborhood parks; stormwater detention basins; 1,053.1 acres of open-space areas and open-space preserves; and major roads with landscaping. The project would require a water supply of not more than 5,600 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. The acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River is proposed in order to provide a reliable water supply for the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 10 additional water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. Under the Resource Impact Minimization Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed thus allowing for a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but the total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide residential housing and expand Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos, rocks, and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. 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 10-0335D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110160, Final EIS--204 pages, Appendices--733 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Land Use KW - Municipal Services KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment 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/876254677?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+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, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 19] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876254669; 14921-0_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,510 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the city of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. The proposed project would involve construction of 10,210 residential units at various densities on 1,477 acres; 362.8 acres designated for commercial and industrial use, including a regional shopping center; public/quasi-public uses; elementary, middle, and high schools on 179.3 acres; 121.7 acres of community and neighborhood parks; stormwater detention basins; 1,053.1 acres of open-space areas and open-space preserves; and major roads with landscaping. The project would require a water supply of not more than 5,600 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. The acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River is proposed in order to provide a reliable water supply for the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 10 additional water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. Under the Resource Impact Minimization Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed thus allowing for a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but the total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide residential housing and expand Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos, rocks, and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. 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 10-0335D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110160, Final EIS--204 pages, Appendices--733 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Land Use KW - Municipal Services KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment 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/876254669?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 19] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876254666; 14921-0_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,510 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the city of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. The proposed project would involve construction of 10,210 residential units at various densities on 1,477 acres; 362.8 acres designated for commercial and industrial use, including a regional shopping center; public/quasi-public uses; elementary, middle, and high schools on 179.3 acres; 121.7 acres of community and neighborhood parks; stormwater detention basins; 1,053.1 acres of open-space areas and open-space preserves; and major roads with landscaping. The project would require a water supply of not more than 5,600 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. The acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River is proposed in order to provide a reliable water supply for the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 10 additional water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. Under the Resource Impact Minimization Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed thus allowing for a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but the total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide residential housing and expand Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos, rocks, and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. 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 10-0335D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110160, Final EIS--204 pages, Appendices--733 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Land Use KW - Municipal Services KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment 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/876254666?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+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, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 19] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876254660; 14921-0_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,510 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the city of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. The proposed project would involve construction of 10,210 residential units at various densities on 1,477 acres; 362.8 acres designated for commercial and industrial use, including a regional shopping center; public/quasi-public uses; elementary, middle, and high schools on 179.3 acres; 121.7 acres of community and neighborhood parks; stormwater detention basins; 1,053.1 acres of open-space areas and open-space preserves; and major roads with landscaping. The project would require a water supply of not more than 5,600 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. The acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River is proposed in order to provide a reliable water supply for the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 10 additional water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. Under the Resource Impact Minimization Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed thus allowing for a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but the total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide residential housing and expand Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos, rocks, and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. 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 10-0335D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110160, Final EIS--204 pages, Appendices--733 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Land Use KW - Municipal Services KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment 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/876254660?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+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, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 19] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876254658; 14921-0_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,510 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the city of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. The proposed project would involve construction of 10,210 residential units at various densities on 1,477 acres; 362.8 acres designated for commercial and industrial use, including a regional shopping center; public/quasi-public uses; elementary, middle, and high schools on 179.3 acres; 121.7 acres of community and neighborhood parks; stormwater detention basins; 1,053.1 acres of open-space areas and open-space preserves; and major roads with landscaping. The project would require a water supply of not more than 5,600 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. The acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River is proposed in order to provide a reliable water supply for the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 10 additional water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. Under the Resource Impact Minimization Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed thus allowing for a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but the total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide residential housing and expand Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos, rocks, and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. 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 10-0335D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110160, Final EIS--204 pages, Appendices--733 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Land Use KW - Municipal Services KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment 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/876254658?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+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, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 51 of 51] T2 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876254652; 14919-8_0051 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements on State Route 91 (SR-91) and Interstate 15 (I-15) in Riverside and Orange counties, California are proposed. SR-91 is the only major highway that provides the home-to-work connection for Riverside and San Bernardino County residents working in Orange and Los Angeles Counties. It is currently used by more than 280,000 vehicles per day at the Orange/Riverside County line and travel speeds are well below 30 miles per hour (mph) during peak travel periods. Traffic volumes are expected to increase by 50 percent by 2035. The SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project (CIP) would widen the existing highway from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange in the cities of Anaheim and Yorba Linda in Orange County to Pierce Street in the City of Riverside in Riverside County and improve I-15 in Riverside County between the I-15/Cajalco Road interchange and the I-15/Hidden Valley Parkway interchange in the City of Corona. Currently, SR-91 has four general purpose lanes in each direction, with those lanes varying in width from 11 to 12 feet from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange to the SR-91/ I-15 interchange, and three 12-foot-wide lanes in each direction from the SR-91/I-15 interchange to Pierce Street. In addition, there are two tolled express lanes and one high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction. The tolled express lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin in Orange County west of the SR-91/SR-55 interchange and end at the Orange/Riverside County line. The two HOV lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin where the tolled express lanes end just east of the Orange/Riverside County line and extend to Mary Street in the City of Riverside. This draft EIS evaluates two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. Both build alternatives would add one general purpose lane in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15 and would include improvements to I-15 between the Cajalco Road interchange and the Hidden Valley Parkway interchange. The two build alternatives would provide auxiliary lanes or collector-distributor roads at interchanges and would modify the existing interchange geometrics to improve traffic operations. The build alternatives would also upgrade existing SR-91 to standard shoulder, lane, and buffer widths where those upgrades can be accommodated. Under Alternative 1, the existing HOV facilities and tolled express lanes would be maintained in their current configurations. Alternative 2, which is the locally preferred alternative, would provide two tolled express lanes in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15. The existing HOV and express lanes would be incorporated into these two tolled express lanes. East of I-15, the HOV lanes in Alternative 1 and the tolled express lanes in Alternative 2 would transition to the existing HOV and general purpose lanes at Mary Street. Alternative 1 would provide one median HOV lane in each direction on I-15 between SR-91 and Ontario Avenue. Alternative 2 would provide one median tolled express lane in each direction on I-15 between Hidden Valley Parkway and Cajalco Road. Local access at the existing interchanges is expected to be maintained except at West Grand Boulevard, where the existing half-diamond interchange ramps would be replaced with improved local connectivity to the Lincoln Avenue interchange. Implementation of the project is proposed in phases over a 20-year period and the total costs of Alternatives 1 and 2 are estimated at $990 million to $1.0 billion and $1.35 billion to $1.43 billion, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the movement of vehicles and goods within the corridor to more effectively serve existing and future travel demand between and within Riverside and Orange Counties. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed improvements would permanently convert 17 to 20 acres of farmland and grazing land, convert two to three acres of federal wetlands, remove two to three acres of habitat for the California gnatcatcher, impact 27 to 35 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat, and increase impervious surface area by 120 to 171 acres. New right-of-way would require acquisition of 93 to 161 residences and 110 to 275 businesses. Noise levels in 2035 would exceed 75 decibels at an additional 34 to 41 locations. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110158, Volume I--1,459 pages and maps, Volume II (Appendices)--503 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 51 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254652?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - California Department of Transportation, San Bernardino, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 50 of 51] T2 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876254648; 14919-8_0050 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements on State Route 91 (SR-91) and Interstate 15 (I-15) in Riverside and Orange counties, California are proposed. SR-91 is the only major highway that provides the home-to-work connection for Riverside and San Bernardino County residents working in Orange and Los Angeles Counties. It is currently used by more than 280,000 vehicles per day at the Orange/Riverside County line and travel speeds are well below 30 miles per hour (mph) during peak travel periods. Traffic volumes are expected to increase by 50 percent by 2035. The SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project (CIP) would widen the existing highway from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange in the cities of Anaheim and Yorba Linda in Orange County to Pierce Street in the City of Riverside in Riverside County and improve I-15 in Riverside County between the I-15/Cajalco Road interchange and the I-15/Hidden Valley Parkway interchange in the City of Corona. Currently, SR-91 has four general purpose lanes in each direction, with those lanes varying in width from 11 to 12 feet from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange to the SR-91/ I-15 interchange, and three 12-foot-wide lanes in each direction from the SR-91/I-15 interchange to Pierce Street. In addition, there are two tolled express lanes and one high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction. The tolled express lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin in Orange County west of the SR-91/SR-55 interchange and end at the Orange/Riverside County line. The two HOV lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin where the tolled express lanes end just east of the Orange/Riverside County line and extend to Mary Street in the City of Riverside. This draft EIS evaluates two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. Both build alternatives would add one general purpose lane in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15 and would include improvements to I-15 between the Cajalco Road interchange and the Hidden Valley Parkway interchange. The two build alternatives would provide auxiliary lanes or collector-distributor roads at interchanges and would modify the existing interchange geometrics to improve traffic operations. The build alternatives would also upgrade existing SR-91 to standard shoulder, lane, and buffer widths where those upgrades can be accommodated. Under Alternative 1, the existing HOV facilities and tolled express lanes would be maintained in their current configurations. Alternative 2, which is the locally preferred alternative, would provide two tolled express lanes in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15. The existing HOV and express lanes would be incorporated into these two tolled express lanes. East of I-15, the HOV lanes in Alternative 1 and the tolled express lanes in Alternative 2 would transition to the existing HOV and general purpose lanes at Mary Street. Alternative 1 would provide one median HOV lane in each direction on I-15 between SR-91 and Ontario Avenue. Alternative 2 would provide one median tolled express lane in each direction on I-15 between Hidden Valley Parkway and Cajalco Road. Local access at the existing interchanges is expected to be maintained except at West Grand Boulevard, where the existing half-diamond interchange ramps would be replaced with improved local connectivity to the Lincoln Avenue interchange. Implementation of the project is proposed in phases over a 20-year period and the total costs of Alternatives 1 and 2 are estimated at $990 million to $1.0 billion and $1.35 billion to $1.43 billion, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the movement of vehicles and goods within the corridor to more effectively serve existing and future travel demand between and within Riverside and Orange Counties. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed improvements would permanently convert 17 to 20 acres of farmland and grazing land, convert two to three acres of federal wetlands, remove two to three acres of habitat for the California gnatcatcher, impact 27 to 35 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat, and increase impervious surface area by 120 to 171 acres. New right-of-way would require acquisition of 93 to 161 residences and 110 to 275 businesses. Noise levels in 2035 would exceed 75 decibels at an additional 34 to 41 locations. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110158, Volume I--1,459 pages and maps, Volume II (Appendices)--503 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 50 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254648?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - California Department of Transportation, San Bernardino, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 17 of 51] T2 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876254645; 14919-8_0017 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements on State Route 91 (SR-91) and Interstate 15 (I-15) in Riverside and Orange counties, California are proposed. SR-91 is the only major highway that provides the home-to-work connection for Riverside and San Bernardino County residents working in Orange and Los Angeles Counties. It is currently used by more than 280,000 vehicles per day at the Orange/Riverside County line and travel speeds are well below 30 miles per hour (mph) during peak travel periods. Traffic volumes are expected to increase by 50 percent by 2035. The SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project (CIP) would widen the existing highway from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange in the cities of Anaheim and Yorba Linda in Orange County to Pierce Street in the City of Riverside in Riverside County and improve I-15 in Riverside County between the I-15/Cajalco Road interchange and the I-15/Hidden Valley Parkway interchange in the City of Corona. Currently, SR-91 has four general purpose lanes in each direction, with those lanes varying in width from 11 to 12 feet from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange to the SR-91/ I-15 interchange, and three 12-foot-wide lanes in each direction from the SR-91/I-15 interchange to Pierce Street. In addition, there are two tolled express lanes and one high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction. The tolled express lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin in Orange County west of the SR-91/SR-55 interchange and end at the Orange/Riverside County line. The two HOV lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin where the tolled express lanes end just east of the Orange/Riverside County line and extend to Mary Street in the City of Riverside. This draft EIS evaluates two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. Both build alternatives would add one general purpose lane in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15 and would include improvements to I-15 between the Cajalco Road interchange and the Hidden Valley Parkway interchange. The two build alternatives would provide auxiliary lanes or collector-distributor roads at interchanges and would modify the existing interchange geometrics to improve traffic operations. The build alternatives would also upgrade existing SR-91 to standard shoulder, lane, and buffer widths where those upgrades can be accommodated. Under Alternative 1, the existing HOV facilities and tolled express lanes would be maintained in their current configurations. Alternative 2, which is the locally preferred alternative, would provide two tolled express lanes in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15. The existing HOV and express lanes would be incorporated into these two tolled express lanes. East of I-15, the HOV lanes in Alternative 1 and the tolled express lanes in Alternative 2 would transition to the existing HOV and general purpose lanes at Mary Street. Alternative 1 would provide one median HOV lane in each direction on I-15 between SR-91 and Ontario Avenue. Alternative 2 would provide one median tolled express lane in each direction on I-15 between Hidden Valley Parkway and Cajalco Road. Local access at the existing interchanges is expected to be maintained except at West Grand Boulevard, where the existing half-diamond interchange ramps would be replaced with improved local connectivity to the Lincoln Avenue interchange. Implementation of the project is proposed in phases over a 20-year period and the total costs of Alternatives 1 and 2 are estimated at $990 million to $1.0 billion and $1.35 billion to $1.43 billion, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the movement of vehicles and goods within the corridor to more effectively serve existing and future travel demand between and within Riverside and Orange Counties. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed improvements would permanently convert 17 to 20 acres of farmland and grazing land, convert two to three acres of federal wetlands, remove two to three acres of habitat for the California gnatcatcher, impact 27 to 35 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat, and increase impervious surface area by 120 to 171 acres. New right-of-way would require acquisition of 93 to 161 residences and 110 to 275 businesses. Noise levels in 2035 would exceed 75 decibels at an additional 34 to 41 locations. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110158, Volume I--1,459 pages and maps, Volume II (Appendices)--503 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 17 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254645?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - California Department of Transportation, San Bernardino, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 16 of 51] T2 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876254639; 14919-8_0016 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements on State Route 91 (SR-91) and Interstate 15 (I-15) in Riverside and Orange counties, California are proposed. SR-91 is the only major highway that provides the home-to-work connection for Riverside and San Bernardino County residents working in Orange and Los Angeles Counties. It is currently used by more than 280,000 vehicles per day at the Orange/Riverside County line and travel speeds are well below 30 miles per hour (mph) during peak travel periods. Traffic volumes are expected to increase by 50 percent by 2035. The SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project (CIP) would widen the existing highway from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange in the cities of Anaheim and Yorba Linda in Orange County to Pierce Street in the City of Riverside in Riverside County and improve I-15 in Riverside County between the I-15/Cajalco Road interchange and the I-15/Hidden Valley Parkway interchange in the City of Corona. Currently, SR-91 has four general purpose lanes in each direction, with those lanes varying in width from 11 to 12 feet from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange to the SR-91/ I-15 interchange, and three 12-foot-wide lanes in each direction from the SR-91/I-15 interchange to Pierce Street. In addition, there are two tolled express lanes and one high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction. The tolled express lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin in Orange County west of the SR-91/SR-55 interchange and end at the Orange/Riverside County line. The two HOV lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin where the tolled express lanes end just east of the Orange/Riverside County line and extend to Mary Street in the City of Riverside. This draft EIS evaluates two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. Both build alternatives would add one general purpose lane in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15 and would include improvements to I-15 between the Cajalco Road interchange and the Hidden Valley Parkway interchange. The two build alternatives would provide auxiliary lanes or collector-distributor roads at interchanges and would modify the existing interchange geometrics to improve traffic operations. The build alternatives would also upgrade existing SR-91 to standard shoulder, lane, and buffer widths where those upgrades can be accommodated. Under Alternative 1, the existing HOV facilities and tolled express lanes would be maintained in their current configurations. Alternative 2, which is the locally preferred alternative, would provide two tolled express lanes in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15. The existing HOV and express lanes would be incorporated into these two tolled express lanes. East of I-15, the HOV lanes in Alternative 1 and the tolled express lanes in Alternative 2 would transition to the existing HOV and general purpose lanes at Mary Street. Alternative 1 would provide one median HOV lane in each direction on I-15 between SR-91 and Ontario Avenue. Alternative 2 would provide one median tolled express lane in each direction on I-15 between Hidden Valley Parkway and Cajalco Road. Local access at the existing interchanges is expected to be maintained except at West Grand Boulevard, where the existing half-diamond interchange ramps would be replaced with improved local connectivity to the Lincoln Avenue interchange. Implementation of the project is proposed in phases over a 20-year period and the total costs of Alternatives 1 and 2 are estimated at $990 million to $1.0 billion and $1.35 billion to $1.43 billion, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the movement of vehicles and goods within the corridor to more effectively serve existing and future travel demand between and within Riverside and Orange Counties. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed improvements would permanently convert 17 to 20 acres of farmland and grazing land, convert two to three acres of federal wetlands, remove two to three acres of habitat for the California gnatcatcher, impact 27 to 35 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat, and increase impervious surface area by 120 to 171 acres. New right-of-way would require acquisition of 93 to 161 residences and 110 to 275 businesses. Noise levels in 2035 would exceed 75 decibels at an additional 34 to 41 locations. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110158, Volume I--1,459 pages and maps, Volume II (Appendices)--503 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 16 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254639?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - California Department of Transportation, San Bernardino, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 14 of 51] T2 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876254630; 14919-8_0014 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements on State Route 91 (SR-91) and Interstate 15 (I-15) in Riverside and Orange counties, California are proposed. SR-91 is the only major highway that provides the home-to-work connection for Riverside and San Bernardino County residents working in Orange and Los Angeles Counties. It is currently used by more than 280,000 vehicles per day at the Orange/Riverside County line and travel speeds are well below 30 miles per hour (mph) during peak travel periods. Traffic volumes are expected to increase by 50 percent by 2035. The SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project (CIP) would widen the existing highway from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange in the cities of Anaheim and Yorba Linda in Orange County to Pierce Street in the City of Riverside in Riverside County and improve I-15 in Riverside County between the I-15/Cajalco Road interchange and the I-15/Hidden Valley Parkway interchange in the City of Corona. Currently, SR-91 has four general purpose lanes in each direction, with those lanes varying in width from 11 to 12 feet from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange to the SR-91/ I-15 interchange, and three 12-foot-wide lanes in each direction from the SR-91/I-15 interchange to Pierce Street. In addition, there are two tolled express lanes and one high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction. The tolled express lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin in Orange County west of the SR-91/SR-55 interchange and end at the Orange/Riverside County line. The two HOV lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin where the tolled express lanes end just east of the Orange/Riverside County line and extend to Mary Street in the City of Riverside. This draft EIS evaluates two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. Both build alternatives would add one general purpose lane in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15 and would include improvements to I-15 between the Cajalco Road interchange and the Hidden Valley Parkway interchange. The two build alternatives would provide auxiliary lanes or collector-distributor roads at interchanges and would modify the existing interchange geometrics to improve traffic operations. The build alternatives would also upgrade existing SR-91 to standard shoulder, lane, and buffer widths where those upgrades can be accommodated. Under Alternative 1, the existing HOV facilities and tolled express lanes would be maintained in their current configurations. Alternative 2, which is the locally preferred alternative, would provide two tolled express lanes in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15. The existing HOV and express lanes would be incorporated into these two tolled express lanes. East of I-15, the HOV lanes in Alternative 1 and the tolled express lanes in Alternative 2 would transition to the existing HOV and general purpose lanes at Mary Street. Alternative 1 would provide one median HOV lane in each direction on I-15 between SR-91 and Ontario Avenue. Alternative 2 would provide one median tolled express lane in each direction on I-15 between Hidden Valley Parkway and Cajalco Road. Local access at the existing interchanges is expected to be maintained except at West Grand Boulevard, where the existing half-diamond interchange ramps would be replaced with improved local connectivity to the Lincoln Avenue interchange. Implementation of the project is proposed in phases over a 20-year period and the total costs of Alternatives 1 and 2 are estimated at $990 million to $1.0 billion and $1.35 billion to $1.43 billion, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the movement of vehicles and goods within the corridor to more effectively serve existing and future travel demand between and within Riverside and Orange Counties. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed improvements would permanently convert 17 to 20 acres of farmland and grazing land, convert two to three acres of federal wetlands, remove two to three acres of habitat for the California gnatcatcher, impact 27 to 35 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat, and increase impervious surface area by 120 to 171 acres. New right-of-way would require acquisition of 93 to 161 residences and 110 to 275 businesses. Noise levels in 2035 would exceed 75 decibels at an additional 34 to 41 locations. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110158, Volume I--1,459 pages and maps, Volume II (Appendices)--503 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254630?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - California Department of Transportation, San Bernardino, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 10 of 19] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876254406; 14921-0_0010 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,510 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the city of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. The proposed project would involve construction of 10,210 residential units at various densities on 1,477 acres; 362.8 acres designated for commercial and industrial use, including a regional shopping center; public/quasi-public uses; elementary, middle, and high schools on 179.3 acres; 121.7 acres of community and neighborhood parks; stormwater detention basins; 1,053.1 acres of open-space areas and open-space preserves; and major roads with landscaping. The project would require a water supply of not more than 5,600 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. The acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River is proposed in order to provide a reliable water supply for the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 10 additional water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. Under the Resource Impact Minimization Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed thus allowing for a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but the total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide residential housing and expand Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos, rocks, and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. 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 10-0335D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110160, Final EIS--204 pages, Appendices--733 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Land Use KW - Municipal Services KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment 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/876254406?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+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, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 9 of 19] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876254404; 14921-0_0009 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,510 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the city of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. The proposed project would involve construction of 10,210 residential units at various densities on 1,477 acres; 362.8 acres designated for commercial and industrial use, including a regional shopping center; public/quasi-public uses; elementary, middle, and high schools on 179.3 acres; 121.7 acres of community and neighborhood parks; stormwater detention basins; 1,053.1 acres of open-space areas and open-space preserves; and major roads with landscaping. The project would require a water supply of not more than 5,600 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. The acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River is proposed in order to provide a reliable water supply for the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 10 additional water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. Under the Resource Impact Minimization Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed thus allowing for a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but the total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide residential housing and expand Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos, rocks, and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. 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 10-0335D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110160, Final EIS--204 pages, Appendices--733 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Land Use KW - Municipal Services KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment 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/876254404?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+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, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 8 of 19] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876254402; 14921-0_0008 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,510 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the city of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. The proposed project would involve construction of 10,210 residential units at various densities on 1,477 acres; 362.8 acres designated for commercial and industrial use, including a regional shopping center; public/quasi-public uses; elementary, middle, and high schools on 179.3 acres; 121.7 acres of community and neighborhood parks; stormwater detention basins; 1,053.1 acres of open-space areas and open-space preserves; and major roads with landscaping. The project would require a water supply of not more than 5,600 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. The acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River is proposed in order to provide a reliable water supply for the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 10 additional water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. Under the Resource Impact Minimization Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed thus allowing for a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but the total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide residential housing and expand Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos, rocks, and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. 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 10-0335D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110160, Final EIS--204 pages, Appendices--733 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Land Use KW - Municipal Services KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment 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/876254402?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+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, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 19] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876254399; 14921-0_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,510 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the city of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. The proposed project would involve construction of 10,210 residential units at various densities on 1,477 acres; 362.8 acres designated for commercial and industrial use, including a regional shopping center; public/quasi-public uses; elementary, middle, and high schools on 179.3 acres; 121.7 acres of community and neighborhood parks; stormwater detention basins; 1,053.1 acres of open-space areas and open-space preserves; and major roads with landscaping. The project would require a water supply of not more than 5,600 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. The acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River is proposed in order to provide a reliable water supply for the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 10 additional water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. Under the Resource Impact Minimization Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed thus allowing for a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but the total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide residential housing and expand Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos, rocks, and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. 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 10-0335D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110160, Final EIS--204 pages, Appendices--733 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Land Use KW - Municipal Services KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment 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/876254399?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+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, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 9 of 51] T2 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876254398; 14919-8_0009 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements on State Route 91 (SR-91) and Interstate 15 (I-15) in Riverside and Orange counties, California are proposed. SR-91 is the only major highway that provides the home-to-work connection for Riverside and San Bernardino County residents working in Orange and Los Angeles Counties. It is currently used by more than 280,000 vehicles per day at the Orange/Riverside County line and travel speeds are well below 30 miles per hour (mph) during peak travel periods. Traffic volumes are expected to increase by 50 percent by 2035. The SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project (CIP) would widen the existing highway from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange in the cities of Anaheim and Yorba Linda in Orange County to Pierce Street in the City of Riverside in Riverside County and improve I-15 in Riverside County between the I-15/Cajalco Road interchange and the I-15/Hidden Valley Parkway interchange in the City of Corona. Currently, SR-91 has four general purpose lanes in each direction, with those lanes varying in width from 11 to 12 feet from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange to the SR-91/ I-15 interchange, and three 12-foot-wide lanes in each direction from the SR-91/I-15 interchange to Pierce Street. In addition, there are two tolled express lanes and one high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction. The tolled express lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin in Orange County west of the SR-91/SR-55 interchange and end at the Orange/Riverside County line. The two HOV lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin where the tolled express lanes end just east of the Orange/Riverside County line and extend to Mary Street in the City of Riverside. This draft EIS evaluates two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. Both build alternatives would add one general purpose lane in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15 and would include improvements to I-15 between the Cajalco Road interchange and the Hidden Valley Parkway interchange. The two build alternatives would provide auxiliary lanes or collector-distributor roads at interchanges and would modify the existing interchange geometrics to improve traffic operations. The build alternatives would also upgrade existing SR-91 to standard shoulder, lane, and buffer widths where those upgrades can be accommodated. Under Alternative 1, the existing HOV facilities and tolled express lanes would be maintained in their current configurations. Alternative 2, which is the locally preferred alternative, would provide two tolled express lanes in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15. The existing HOV and express lanes would be incorporated into these two tolled express lanes. East of I-15, the HOV lanes in Alternative 1 and the tolled express lanes in Alternative 2 would transition to the existing HOV and general purpose lanes at Mary Street. Alternative 1 would provide one median HOV lane in each direction on I-15 between SR-91 and Ontario Avenue. Alternative 2 would provide one median tolled express lane in each direction on I-15 between Hidden Valley Parkway and Cajalco Road. Local access at the existing interchanges is expected to be maintained except at West Grand Boulevard, where the existing half-diamond interchange ramps would be replaced with improved local connectivity to the Lincoln Avenue interchange. Implementation of the project is proposed in phases over a 20-year period and the total costs of Alternatives 1 and 2 are estimated at $990 million to $1.0 billion and $1.35 billion to $1.43 billion, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the movement of vehicles and goods within the corridor to more effectively serve existing and future travel demand between and within Riverside and Orange Counties. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed improvements would permanently convert 17 to 20 acres of farmland and grazing land, convert two to three acres of federal wetlands, remove two to three acres of habitat for the California gnatcatcher, impact 27 to 35 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat, and increase impervious surface area by 120 to 171 acres. New right-of-way would require acquisition of 93 to 161 residences and 110 to 275 businesses. Noise levels in 2035 would exceed 75 decibels at an additional 34 to 41 locations. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110158, Volume I--1,459 pages and maps, Volume II (Appendices)--503 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254398?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - California Department of Transportation, San Bernardino, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 8 of 51] T2 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876254397; 14919-8_0008 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements on State Route 91 (SR-91) and Interstate 15 (I-15) in Riverside and Orange counties, California are proposed. SR-91 is the only major highway that provides the home-to-work connection for Riverside and San Bernardino County residents working in Orange and Los Angeles Counties. It is currently used by more than 280,000 vehicles per day at the Orange/Riverside County line and travel speeds are well below 30 miles per hour (mph) during peak travel periods. Traffic volumes are expected to increase by 50 percent by 2035. The SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project (CIP) would widen the existing highway from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange in the cities of Anaheim and Yorba Linda in Orange County to Pierce Street in the City of Riverside in Riverside County and improve I-15 in Riverside County between the I-15/Cajalco Road interchange and the I-15/Hidden Valley Parkway interchange in the City of Corona. Currently, SR-91 has four general purpose lanes in each direction, with those lanes varying in width from 11 to 12 feet from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange to the SR-91/ I-15 interchange, and three 12-foot-wide lanes in each direction from the SR-91/I-15 interchange to Pierce Street. In addition, there are two tolled express lanes and one high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction. The tolled express lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin in Orange County west of the SR-91/SR-55 interchange and end at the Orange/Riverside County line. The two HOV lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin where the tolled express lanes end just east of the Orange/Riverside County line and extend to Mary Street in the City of Riverside. This draft EIS evaluates two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. Both build alternatives would add one general purpose lane in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15 and would include improvements to I-15 between the Cajalco Road interchange and the Hidden Valley Parkway interchange. The two build alternatives would provide auxiliary lanes or collector-distributor roads at interchanges and would modify the existing interchange geometrics to improve traffic operations. The build alternatives would also upgrade existing SR-91 to standard shoulder, lane, and buffer widths where those upgrades can be accommodated. Under Alternative 1, the existing HOV facilities and tolled express lanes would be maintained in their current configurations. Alternative 2, which is the locally preferred alternative, would provide two tolled express lanes in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15. The existing HOV and express lanes would be incorporated into these two tolled express lanes. East of I-15, the HOV lanes in Alternative 1 and the tolled express lanes in Alternative 2 would transition to the existing HOV and general purpose lanes at Mary Street. Alternative 1 would provide one median HOV lane in each direction on I-15 between SR-91 and Ontario Avenue. Alternative 2 would provide one median tolled express lane in each direction on I-15 between Hidden Valley Parkway and Cajalco Road. Local access at the existing interchanges is expected to be maintained except at West Grand Boulevard, where the existing half-diamond interchange ramps would be replaced with improved local connectivity to the Lincoln Avenue interchange. Implementation of the project is proposed in phases over a 20-year period and the total costs of Alternatives 1 and 2 are estimated at $990 million to $1.0 billion and $1.35 billion to $1.43 billion, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the movement of vehicles and goods within the corridor to more effectively serve existing and future travel demand between and within Riverside and Orange Counties. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed improvements would permanently convert 17 to 20 acres of farmland and grazing land, convert two to three acres of federal wetlands, remove two to three acres of habitat for the California gnatcatcher, impact 27 to 35 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat, and increase impervious surface area by 120 to 171 acres. New right-of-way would require acquisition of 93 to 161 residences and 110 to 275 businesses. Noise levels in 2035 would exceed 75 decibels at an additional 34 to 41 locations. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110158, Volume I--1,459 pages and maps, Volume II (Appendices)--503 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254397?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - California Department of Transportation, San Bernardino, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 7 of 51] T2 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876254395; 14919-8_0007 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements on State Route 91 (SR-91) and Interstate 15 (I-15) in Riverside and Orange counties, California are proposed. SR-91 is the only major highway that provides the home-to-work connection for Riverside and San Bernardino County residents working in Orange and Los Angeles Counties. It is currently used by more than 280,000 vehicles per day at the Orange/Riverside County line and travel speeds are well below 30 miles per hour (mph) during peak travel periods. Traffic volumes are expected to increase by 50 percent by 2035. The SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project (CIP) would widen the existing highway from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange in the cities of Anaheim and Yorba Linda in Orange County to Pierce Street in the City of Riverside in Riverside County and improve I-15 in Riverside County between the I-15/Cajalco Road interchange and the I-15/Hidden Valley Parkway interchange in the City of Corona. Currently, SR-91 has four general purpose lanes in each direction, with those lanes varying in width from 11 to 12 feet from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange to the SR-91/ I-15 interchange, and three 12-foot-wide lanes in each direction from the SR-91/I-15 interchange to Pierce Street. In addition, there are two tolled express lanes and one high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction. The tolled express lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin in Orange County west of the SR-91/SR-55 interchange and end at the Orange/Riverside County line. The two HOV lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin where the tolled express lanes end just east of the Orange/Riverside County line and extend to Mary Street in the City of Riverside. This draft EIS evaluates two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. Both build alternatives would add one general purpose lane in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15 and would include improvements to I-15 between the Cajalco Road interchange and the Hidden Valley Parkway interchange. The two build alternatives would provide auxiliary lanes or collector-distributor roads at interchanges and would modify the existing interchange geometrics to improve traffic operations. The build alternatives would also upgrade existing SR-91 to standard shoulder, lane, and buffer widths where those upgrades can be accommodated. Under Alternative 1, the existing HOV facilities and tolled express lanes would be maintained in their current configurations. Alternative 2, which is the locally preferred alternative, would provide two tolled express lanes in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15. The existing HOV and express lanes would be incorporated into these two tolled express lanes. East of I-15, the HOV lanes in Alternative 1 and the tolled express lanes in Alternative 2 would transition to the existing HOV and general purpose lanes at Mary Street. Alternative 1 would provide one median HOV lane in each direction on I-15 between SR-91 and Ontario Avenue. Alternative 2 would provide one median tolled express lane in each direction on I-15 between Hidden Valley Parkway and Cajalco Road. Local access at the existing interchanges is expected to be maintained except at West Grand Boulevard, where the existing half-diamond interchange ramps would be replaced with improved local connectivity to the Lincoln Avenue interchange. Implementation of the project is proposed in phases over a 20-year period and the total costs of Alternatives 1 and 2 are estimated at $990 million to $1.0 billion and $1.35 billion to $1.43 billion, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the movement of vehicles and goods within the corridor to more effectively serve existing and future travel demand between and within Riverside and Orange Counties. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed improvements would permanently convert 17 to 20 acres of farmland and grazing land, convert two to three acres of federal wetlands, remove two to three acres of habitat for the California gnatcatcher, impact 27 to 35 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat, and increase impervious surface area by 120 to 171 acres. New right-of-way would require acquisition of 93 to 161 residences and 110 to 275 businesses. Noise levels in 2035 would exceed 75 decibels at an additional 34 to 41 locations. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110158, Volume I--1,459 pages and maps, Volume II (Appendices)--503 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254395?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - California Department of Transportation, San Bernardino, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 6 of 51] T2 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876254394; 14919-8_0006 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements on State Route 91 (SR-91) and Interstate 15 (I-15) in Riverside and Orange counties, California are proposed. SR-91 is the only major highway that provides the home-to-work connection for Riverside and San Bernardino County residents working in Orange and Los Angeles Counties. It is currently used by more than 280,000 vehicles per day at the Orange/Riverside County line and travel speeds are well below 30 miles per hour (mph) during peak travel periods. Traffic volumes are expected to increase by 50 percent by 2035. The SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project (CIP) would widen the existing highway from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange in the cities of Anaheim and Yorba Linda in Orange County to Pierce Street in the City of Riverside in Riverside County and improve I-15 in Riverside County between the I-15/Cajalco Road interchange and the I-15/Hidden Valley Parkway interchange in the City of Corona. Currently, SR-91 has four general purpose lanes in each direction, with those lanes varying in width from 11 to 12 feet from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange to the SR-91/ I-15 interchange, and three 12-foot-wide lanes in each direction from the SR-91/I-15 interchange to Pierce Street. In addition, there are two tolled express lanes and one high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction. The tolled express lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin in Orange County west of the SR-91/SR-55 interchange and end at the Orange/Riverside County line. The two HOV lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin where the tolled express lanes end just east of the Orange/Riverside County line and extend to Mary Street in the City of Riverside. This draft EIS evaluates two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. Both build alternatives would add one general purpose lane in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15 and would include improvements to I-15 between the Cajalco Road interchange and the Hidden Valley Parkway interchange. The two build alternatives would provide auxiliary lanes or collector-distributor roads at interchanges and would modify the existing interchange geometrics to improve traffic operations. The build alternatives would also upgrade existing SR-91 to standard shoulder, lane, and buffer widths where those upgrades can be accommodated. Under Alternative 1, the existing HOV facilities and tolled express lanes would be maintained in their current configurations. Alternative 2, which is the locally preferred alternative, would provide two tolled express lanes in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15. The existing HOV and express lanes would be incorporated into these two tolled express lanes. East of I-15, the HOV lanes in Alternative 1 and the tolled express lanes in Alternative 2 would transition to the existing HOV and general purpose lanes at Mary Street. Alternative 1 would provide one median HOV lane in each direction on I-15 between SR-91 and Ontario Avenue. Alternative 2 would provide one median tolled express lane in each direction on I-15 between Hidden Valley Parkway and Cajalco Road. Local access at the existing interchanges is expected to be maintained except at West Grand Boulevard, where the existing half-diamond interchange ramps would be replaced with improved local connectivity to the Lincoln Avenue interchange. Implementation of the project is proposed in phases over a 20-year period and the total costs of Alternatives 1 and 2 are estimated at $990 million to $1.0 billion and $1.35 billion to $1.43 billion, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the movement of vehicles and goods within the corridor to more effectively serve existing and future travel demand between and within Riverside and Orange Counties. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed improvements would permanently convert 17 to 20 acres of farmland and grazing land, convert two to three acres of federal wetlands, remove two to three acres of habitat for the California gnatcatcher, impact 27 to 35 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat, and increase impervious surface area by 120 to 171 acres. New right-of-way would require acquisition of 93 to 161 residences and 110 to 275 businesses. Noise levels in 2035 would exceed 75 decibels at an additional 34 to 41 locations. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110158, Volume I--1,459 pages and maps, Volume II (Appendices)--503 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254394?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - California Department of Transportation, San Bernardino, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 51] T2 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876254392; 14919-8_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements on State Route 91 (SR-91) and Interstate 15 (I-15) in Riverside and Orange counties, California are proposed. SR-91 is the only major highway that provides the home-to-work connection for Riverside and San Bernardino County residents working in Orange and Los Angeles Counties. It is currently used by more than 280,000 vehicles per day at the Orange/Riverside County line and travel speeds are well below 30 miles per hour (mph) during peak travel periods. Traffic volumes are expected to increase by 50 percent by 2035. The SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project (CIP) would widen the existing highway from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange in the cities of Anaheim and Yorba Linda in Orange County to Pierce Street in the City of Riverside in Riverside County and improve I-15 in Riverside County between the I-15/Cajalco Road interchange and the I-15/Hidden Valley Parkway interchange in the City of Corona. Currently, SR-91 has four general purpose lanes in each direction, with those lanes varying in width from 11 to 12 feet from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange to the SR-91/ I-15 interchange, and three 12-foot-wide lanes in each direction from the SR-91/I-15 interchange to Pierce Street. In addition, there are two tolled express lanes and one high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction. The tolled express lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin in Orange County west of the SR-91/SR-55 interchange and end at the Orange/Riverside County line. The two HOV lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin where the tolled express lanes end just east of the Orange/Riverside County line and extend to Mary Street in the City of Riverside. This draft EIS evaluates two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. Both build alternatives would add one general purpose lane in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15 and would include improvements to I-15 between the Cajalco Road interchange and the Hidden Valley Parkway interchange. The two build alternatives would provide auxiliary lanes or collector-distributor roads at interchanges and would modify the existing interchange geometrics to improve traffic operations. The build alternatives would also upgrade existing SR-91 to standard shoulder, lane, and buffer widths where those upgrades can be accommodated. Under Alternative 1, the existing HOV facilities and tolled express lanes would be maintained in their current configurations. Alternative 2, which is the locally preferred alternative, would provide two tolled express lanes in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15. The existing HOV and express lanes would be incorporated into these two tolled express lanes. East of I-15, the HOV lanes in Alternative 1 and the tolled express lanes in Alternative 2 would transition to the existing HOV and general purpose lanes at Mary Street. Alternative 1 would provide one median HOV lane in each direction on I-15 between SR-91 and Ontario Avenue. Alternative 2 would provide one median tolled express lane in each direction on I-15 between Hidden Valley Parkway and Cajalco Road. Local access at the existing interchanges is expected to be maintained except at West Grand Boulevard, where the existing half-diamond interchange ramps would be replaced with improved local connectivity to the Lincoln Avenue interchange. Implementation of the project is proposed in phases over a 20-year period and the total costs of Alternatives 1 and 2 are estimated at $990 million to $1.0 billion and $1.35 billion to $1.43 billion, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the movement of vehicles and goods within the corridor to more effectively serve existing and future travel demand between and within Riverside and Orange Counties. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed improvements would permanently convert 17 to 20 acres of farmland and grazing land, convert two to three acres of federal wetlands, remove two to three acres of habitat for the California gnatcatcher, impact 27 to 35 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat, and increase impervious surface area by 120 to 171 acres. New right-of-way would require acquisition of 93 to 161 residences and 110 to 275 businesses. Noise levels in 2035 would exceed 75 decibels at an additional 34 to 41 locations. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110158, Volume I--1,459 pages and maps, Volume II (Appendices)--503 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254392?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - California Department of Transportation, San Bernardino, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 51] T2 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876254391; 14919-8_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements on State Route 91 (SR-91) and Interstate 15 (I-15) in Riverside and Orange counties, California are proposed. SR-91 is the only major highway that provides the home-to-work connection for Riverside and San Bernardino County residents working in Orange and Los Angeles Counties. It is currently used by more than 280,000 vehicles per day at the Orange/Riverside County line and travel speeds are well below 30 miles per hour (mph) during peak travel periods. Traffic volumes are expected to increase by 50 percent by 2035. The SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project (CIP) would widen the existing highway from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange in the cities of Anaheim and Yorba Linda in Orange County to Pierce Street in the City of Riverside in Riverside County and improve I-15 in Riverside County between the I-15/Cajalco Road interchange and the I-15/Hidden Valley Parkway interchange in the City of Corona. Currently, SR-91 has four general purpose lanes in each direction, with those lanes varying in width from 11 to 12 feet from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange to the SR-91/ I-15 interchange, and three 12-foot-wide lanes in each direction from the SR-91/I-15 interchange to Pierce Street. In addition, there are two tolled express lanes and one high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction. The tolled express lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin in Orange County west of the SR-91/SR-55 interchange and end at the Orange/Riverside County line. The two HOV lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin where the tolled express lanes end just east of the Orange/Riverside County line and extend to Mary Street in the City of Riverside. This draft EIS evaluates two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. Both build alternatives would add one general purpose lane in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15 and would include improvements to I-15 between the Cajalco Road interchange and the Hidden Valley Parkway interchange. The two build alternatives would provide auxiliary lanes or collector-distributor roads at interchanges and would modify the existing interchange geometrics to improve traffic operations. The build alternatives would also upgrade existing SR-91 to standard shoulder, lane, and buffer widths where those upgrades can be accommodated. Under Alternative 1, the existing HOV facilities and tolled express lanes would be maintained in their current configurations. Alternative 2, which is the locally preferred alternative, would provide two tolled express lanes in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15. The existing HOV and express lanes would be incorporated into these two tolled express lanes. East of I-15, the HOV lanes in Alternative 1 and the tolled express lanes in Alternative 2 would transition to the existing HOV and general purpose lanes at Mary Street. Alternative 1 would provide one median HOV lane in each direction on I-15 between SR-91 and Ontario Avenue. Alternative 2 would provide one median tolled express lane in each direction on I-15 between Hidden Valley Parkway and Cajalco Road. Local access at the existing interchanges is expected to be maintained except at West Grand Boulevard, where the existing half-diamond interchange ramps would be replaced with improved local connectivity to the Lincoln Avenue interchange. Implementation of the project is proposed in phases over a 20-year period and the total costs of Alternatives 1 and 2 are estimated at $990 million to $1.0 billion and $1.35 billion to $1.43 billion, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the movement of vehicles and goods within the corridor to more effectively serve existing and future travel demand between and within Riverside and Orange Counties. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed improvements would permanently convert 17 to 20 acres of farmland and grazing land, convert two to three acres of federal wetlands, remove two to three acres of habitat for the California gnatcatcher, impact 27 to 35 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat, and increase impervious surface area by 120 to 171 acres. New right-of-way would require acquisition of 93 to 161 residences and 110 to 275 businesses. Noise levels in 2035 would exceed 75 decibels at an additional 34 to 41 locations. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110158, Volume I--1,459 pages and maps, Volume II (Appendices)--503 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254391?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - California Department of Transportation, San Bernardino, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 51] T2 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876254389; 14919-8_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements on State Route 91 (SR-91) and Interstate 15 (I-15) in Riverside and Orange counties, California are proposed. SR-91 is the only major highway that provides the home-to-work connection for Riverside and San Bernardino County residents working in Orange and Los Angeles Counties. It is currently used by more than 280,000 vehicles per day at the Orange/Riverside County line and travel speeds are well below 30 miles per hour (mph) during peak travel periods. Traffic volumes are expected to increase by 50 percent by 2035. The SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project (CIP) would widen the existing highway from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange in the cities of Anaheim and Yorba Linda in Orange County to Pierce Street in the City of Riverside in Riverside County and improve I-15 in Riverside County between the I-15/Cajalco Road interchange and the I-15/Hidden Valley Parkway interchange in the City of Corona. Currently, SR-91 has four general purpose lanes in each direction, with those lanes varying in width from 11 to 12 feet from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange to the SR-91/ I-15 interchange, and three 12-foot-wide lanes in each direction from the SR-91/I-15 interchange to Pierce Street. In addition, there are two tolled express lanes and one high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction. The tolled express lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin in Orange County west of the SR-91/SR-55 interchange and end at the Orange/Riverside County line. The two HOV lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin where the tolled express lanes end just east of the Orange/Riverside County line and extend to Mary Street in the City of Riverside. This draft EIS evaluates two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. Both build alternatives would add one general purpose lane in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15 and would include improvements to I-15 between the Cajalco Road interchange and the Hidden Valley Parkway interchange. The two build alternatives would provide auxiliary lanes or collector-distributor roads at interchanges and would modify the existing interchange geometrics to improve traffic operations. The build alternatives would also upgrade existing SR-91 to standard shoulder, lane, and buffer widths where those upgrades can be accommodated. Under Alternative 1, the existing HOV facilities and tolled express lanes would be maintained in their current configurations. Alternative 2, which is the locally preferred alternative, would provide two tolled express lanes in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15. The existing HOV and express lanes would be incorporated into these two tolled express lanes. East of I-15, the HOV lanes in Alternative 1 and the tolled express lanes in Alternative 2 would transition to the existing HOV and general purpose lanes at Mary Street. Alternative 1 would provide one median HOV lane in each direction on I-15 between SR-91 and Ontario Avenue. Alternative 2 would provide one median tolled express lane in each direction on I-15 between Hidden Valley Parkway and Cajalco Road. Local access at the existing interchanges is expected to be maintained except at West Grand Boulevard, where the existing half-diamond interchange ramps would be replaced with improved local connectivity to the Lincoln Avenue interchange. Implementation of the project is proposed in phases over a 20-year period and the total costs of Alternatives 1 and 2 are estimated at $990 million to $1.0 billion and $1.35 billion to $1.43 billion, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the movement of vehicles and goods within the corridor to more effectively serve existing and future travel demand between and within Riverside and Orange Counties. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed improvements would permanently convert 17 to 20 acres of farmland and grazing land, convert two to three acres of federal wetlands, remove two to three acres of habitat for the California gnatcatcher, impact 27 to 35 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat, and increase impervious surface area by 120 to 171 acres. New right-of-way would require acquisition of 93 to 161 residences and 110 to 275 businesses. Noise levels in 2035 would exceed 75 decibels at an additional 34 to 41 locations. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110158, Volume I--1,459 pages and maps, Volume II (Appendices)--503 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254389?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - California Department of Transportation, San Bernardino, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 19 of 19] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876254299; 14921-0_0019 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,510 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the city of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. The proposed project would involve construction of 10,210 residential units at various densities on 1,477 acres; 362.8 acres designated for commercial and industrial use, including a regional shopping center; public/quasi-public uses; elementary, middle, and high schools on 179.3 acres; 121.7 acres of community and neighborhood parks; stormwater detention basins; 1,053.1 acres of open-space areas and open-space preserves; and major roads with landscaping. The project would require a water supply of not more than 5,600 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. The acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River is proposed in order to provide a reliable water supply for the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 10 additional water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. Under the Resource Impact Minimization Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed thus allowing for a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but the total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide residential housing and expand Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos, rocks, and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. 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 10-0335D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110160, Final EIS--204 pages, Appendices--733 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 19 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Land Use KW - Municipal Services KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment 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/876254299?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+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, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 7 of 19] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876254297; 14921-0_0007 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,510 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the city of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. The proposed project would involve construction of 10,210 residential units at various densities on 1,477 acres; 362.8 acres designated for commercial and industrial use, including a regional shopping center; public/quasi-public uses; elementary, middle, and high schools on 179.3 acres; 121.7 acres of community and neighborhood parks; stormwater detention basins; 1,053.1 acres of open-space areas and open-space preserves; and major roads with landscaping. The project would require a water supply of not more than 5,600 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. The acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River is proposed in order to provide a reliable water supply for the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 10 additional water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. Under the Resource Impact Minimization Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed thus allowing for a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but the total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide residential housing and expand Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos, rocks, and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. 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 10-0335D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110160, Final EIS--204 pages, Appendices--733 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Land Use KW - Municipal Services KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment 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/876254297?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+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, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 51] T2 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876254295; 14919-8_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements on State Route 91 (SR-91) and Interstate 15 (I-15) in Riverside and Orange counties, California are proposed. SR-91 is the only major highway that provides the home-to-work connection for Riverside and San Bernardino County residents working in Orange and Los Angeles Counties. It is currently used by more than 280,000 vehicles per day at the Orange/Riverside County line and travel speeds are well below 30 miles per hour (mph) during peak travel periods. Traffic volumes are expected to increase by 50 percent by 2035. The SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project (CIP) would widen the existing highway from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange in the cities of Anaheim and Yorba Linda in Orange County to Pierce Street in the City of Riverside in Riverside County and improve I-15 in Riverside County between the I-15/Cajalco Road interchange and the I-15/Hidden Valley Parkway interchange in the City of Corona. Currently, SR-91 has four general purpose lanes in each direction, with those lanes varying in width from 11 to 12 feet from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange to the SR-91/ I-15 interchange, and three 12-foot-wide lanes in each direction from the SR-91/I-15 interchange to Pierce Street. In addition, there are two tolled express lanes and one high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction. The tolled express lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin in Orange County west of the SR-91/SR-55 interchange and end at the Orange/Riverside County line. The two HOV lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin where the tolled express lanes end just east of the Orange/Riverside County line and extend to Mary Street in the City of Riverside. This draft EIS evaluates two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. Both build alternatives would add one general purpose lane in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15 and would include improvements to I-15 between the Cajalco Road interchange and the Hidden Valley Parkway interchange. The two build alternatives would provide auxiliary lanes or collector-distributor roads at interchanges and would modify the existing interchange geometrics to improve traffic operations. The build alternatives would also upgrade existing SR-91 to standard shoulder, lane, and buffer widths where those upgrades can be accommodated. Under Alternative 1, the existing HOV facilities and tolled express lanes would be maintained in their current configurations. Alternative 2, which is the locally preferred alternative, would provide two tolled express lanes in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15. The existing HOV and express lanes would be incorporated into these two tolled express lanes. East of I-15, the HOV lanes in Alternative 1 and the tolled express lanes in Alternative 2 would transition to the existing HOV and general purpose lanes at Mary Street. Alternative 1 would provide one median HOV lane in each direction on I-15 between SR-91 and Ontario Avenue. Alternative 2 would provide one median tolled express lane in each direction on I-15 between Hidden Valley Parkway and Cajalco Road. Local access at the existing interchanges is expected to be maintained except at West Grand Boulevard, where the existing half-diamond interchange ramps would be replaced with improved local connectivity to the Lincoln Avenue interchange. Implementation of the project is proposed in phases over a 20-year period and the total costs of Alternatives 1 and 2 are estimated at $990 million to $1.0 billion and $1.35 billion to $1.43 billion, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the movement of vehicles and goods within the corridor to more effectively serve existing and future travel demand between and within Riverside and Orange Counties. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed improvements would permanently convert 17 to 20 acres of farmland and grazing land, convert two to three acres of federal wetlands, remove two to three acres of habitat for the California gnatcatcher, impact 27 to 35 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat, and increase impervious surface area by 120 to 171 acres. New right-of-way would require acquisition of 93 to 161 residences and 110 to 275 businesses. Noise levels in 2035 would exceed 75 decibels at an additional 34 to 41 locations. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110158, Volume I--1,459 pages and maps, Volume II (Appendices)--503 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254295?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - California Department of Transportation, San Bernardino, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 51] T2 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876254294; 14919-8_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements on State Route 91 (SR-91) and Interstate 15 (I-15) in Riverside and Orange counties, California are proposed. SR-91 is the only major highway that provides the home-to-work connection for Riverside and San Bernardino County residents working in Orange and Los Angeles Counties. It is currently used by more than 280,000 vehicles per day at the Orange/Riverside County line and travel speeds are well below 30 miles per hour (mph) during peak travel periods. Traffic volumes are expected to increase by 50 percent by 2035. The SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project (CIP) would widen the existing highway from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange in the cities of Anaheim and Yorba Linda in Orange County to Pierce Street in the City of Riverside in Riverside County and improve I-15 in Riverside County between the I-15/Cajalco Road interchange and the I-15/Hidden Valley Parkway interchange in the City of Corona. Currently, SR-91 has four general purpose lanes in each direction, with those lanes varying in width from 11 to 12 feet from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange to the SR-91/ I-15 interchange, and three 12-foot-wide lanes in each direction from the SR-91/I-15 interchange to Pierce Street. In addition, there are two tolled express lanes and one high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction. The tolled express lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin in Orange County west of the SR-91/SR-55 interchange and end at the Orange/Riverside County line. The two HOV lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin where the tolled express lanes end just east of the Orange/Riverside County line and extend to Mary Street in the City of Riverside. This draft EIS evaluates two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. Both build alternatives would add one general purpose lane in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15 and would include improvements to I-15 between the Cajalco Road interchange and the Hidden Valley Parkway interchange. The two build alternatives would provide auxiliary lanes or collector-distributor roads at interchanges and would modify the existing interchange geometrics to improve traffic operations. The build alternatives would also upgrade existing SR-91 to standard shoulder, lane, and buffer widths where those upgrades can be accommodated. Under Alternative 1, the existing HOV facilities and tolled express lanes would be maintained in their current configurations. Alternative 2, which is the locally preferred alternative, would provide two tolled express lanes in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15. The existing HOV and express lanes would be incorporated into these two tolled express lanes. East of I-15, the HOV lanes in Alternative 1 and the tolled express lanes in Alternative 2 would transition to the existing HOV and general purpose lanes at Mary Street. Alternative 1 would provide one median HOV lane in each direction on I-15 between SR-91 and Ontario Avenue. Alternative 2 would provide one median tolled express lane in each direction on I-15 between Hidden Valley Parkway and Cajalco Road. Local access at the existing interchanges is expected to be maintained except at West Grand Boulevard, where the existing half-diamond interchange ramps would be replaced with improved local connectivity to the Lincoln Avenue interchange. Implementation of the project is proposed in phases over a 20-year period and the total costs of Alternatives 1 and 2 are estimated at $990 million to $1.0 billion and $1.35 billion to $1.43 billion, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the movement of vehicles and goods within the corridor to more effectively serve existing and future travel demand between and within Riverside and Orange Counties. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed improvements would permanently convert 17 to 20 acres of farmland and grazing land, convert two to three acres of federal wetlands, remove two to three acres of habitat for the California gnatcatcher, impact 27 to 35 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat, and increase impervious surface area by 120 to 171 acres. New right-of-way would require acquisition of 93 to 161 residences and 110 to 275 businesses. Noise levels in 2035 would exceed 75 decibels at an additional 34 to 41 locations. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110158, Volume I--1,459 pages and maps, Volume II (Appendices)--503 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254294?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - California Department of Transportation, San Bernardino, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. 30 (FEDERAL AID PRIMARY ROUTE 309) FROM ILLINOIS 136 TO ILLINOIS 40 IN WHITESIDE COUNTY, ILLINOIS. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - U.S. 30 (FEDERAL AID PRIMARY ROUTE 309) FROM ILLINOIS 136 TO ILLINOIS 40 IN WHITESIDE COUNTY, ILLINOIS. AN - 876254293; 14923-2_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to a 24-mile segment of U.S. 30 from IL 136/Frog Pond Road to IL 40 in Whiteside County, Illinois are proposed. The 10-mile wide project study area comprises 697 square miles in northwestern Illinois and passes through six townships including Fulton, Ustick, Union Grove, Mount Pleasant, Hopkins, and Coloma, and the communities of Fulton (at the western terminus), Morrison (located in the central portion of the project study area), and Rock Falls and Sterling (at the eastern terminus). The existing roadway within the limits of this study area exhibits variable rural and urban typical sections. U.S. 30 is a National Highway System route and is designated as a major arterial and truck route. The project study area includes more than 70 intersecting side roads, several signalized intersections, and two four-way stops. Congestion, substandard design, and fixed objects within the clear zone at intersections are the principal factors contributing to crashes within the project study area. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative and two build alternatives which would widen the existing two-lane facility to a four-lane expressway with a median. From IL 136/Frog Pond Road to just west of the city of Morrison and from just east of the city of Morrison to IL 40, generally the improvements would stay on the existing U.S. 30 roadway. New alignment would be constructed either to the north or the south of the city of Morrison. Alternative 4 would bypass Morrison to the north through an area of residences located along Norrish Road, rolling hills, and forest. Alternative 5 would bypass Morrison to the south through an area of flat agricultural ground and scattered farmsteads. Total costs for implementing Alternatives 4 and 5 are estimated in 2020 dollars at $414 million and $383 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would address existing capacity deficiencies and traffic congestion, increasing transportation demand, lack of roadway continuity, and the overall safety of the roadway within the U.S. 30 project study area in Whiteside County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New right-of-way would require conversion of 614 to 625 acres of agricultural land and the displacement of 30 to 37 residences and four businesses. The build alternatives would cross eight to nine streams, impact 0.24 acre of wetland, and encroach upon an additional 16,372 to 21,911 linear feet of 100-year floodplain. Construction in or adjacent to Elkhorn Creek and the Rock River would impact the black sandshell mussel, a state-threatened species. Under Alternative 4, the north bypass of Morrison would bisect a small neighborhood and impact community cohesion. Motels, gas stations, and fast food restaurants in Morrison could experience a reduction in business. Approximately 20 noise sensitive receivers would be impacted. 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: 110162, 1,047 pages and maps, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Safety Analyses KW - Shellfish KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Illinois KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254293?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+30+%28FEDERAL+AID+PRIMARY+ROUTE+309%29+FROM+ILLINOIS+136+TO+ILLINOIS+40+IN+WHITESIDE+COUNTY%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.title=U.S.+30+%28FEDERAL+AID+PRIMARY+ROUTE+309%29+FROM+ILLINOIS+136+TO+ILLINOIS+40+IN+WHITESIDE+COUNTY%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Springfield, Illinois; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 49 of 51] T2 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876254235; 14919-8_0049 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements on State Route 91 (SR-91) and Interstate 15 (I-15) in Riverside and Orange counties, California are proposed. SR-91 is the only major highway that provides the home-to-work connection for Riverside and San Bernardino County residents working in Orange and Los Angeles Counties. It is currently used by more than 280,000 vehicles per day at the Orange/Riverside County line and travel speeds are well below 30 miles per hour (mph) during peak travel periods. Traffic volumes are expected to increase by 50 percent by 2035. The SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project (CIP) would widen the existing highway from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange in the cities of Anaheim and Yorba Linda in Orange County to Pierce Street in the City of Riverside in Riverside County and improve I-15 in Riverside County between the I-15/Cajalco Road interchange and the I-15/Hidden Valley Parkway interchange in the City of Corona. Currently, SR-91 has four general purpose lanes in each direction, with those lanes varying in width from 11 to 12 feet from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange to the SR-91/ I-15 interchange, and three 12-foot-wide lanes in each direction from the SR-91/I-15 interchange to Pierce Street. In addition, there are two tolled express lanes and one high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction. The tolled express lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin in Orange County west of the SR-91/SR-55 interchange and end at the Orange/Riverside County line. The two HOV lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin where the tolled express lanes end just east of the Orange/Riverside County line and extend to Mary Street in the City of Riverside. This draft EIS evaluates two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. Both build alternatives would add one general purpose lane in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15 and would include improvements to I-15 between the Cajalco Road interchange and the Hidden Valley Parkway interchange. The two build alternatives would provide auxiliary lanes or collector-distributor roads at interchanges and would modify the existing interchange geometrics to improve traffic operations. The build alternatives would also upgrade existing SR-91 to standard shoulder, lane, and buffer widths where those upgrades can be accommodated. Under Alternative 1, the existing HOV facilities and tolled express lanes would be maintained in their current configurations. Alternative 2, which is the locally preferred alternative, would provide two tolled express lanes in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15. The existing HOV and express lanes would be incorporated into these two tolled express lanes. East of I-15, the HOV lanes in Alternative 1 and the tolled express lanes in Alternative 2 would transition to the existing HOV and general purpose lanes at Mary Street. Alternative 1 would provide one median HOV lane in each direction on I-15 between SR-91 and Ontario Avenue. Alternative 2 would provide one median tolled express lane in each direction on I-15 between Hidden Valley Parkway and Cajalco Road. Local access at the existing interchanges is expected to be maintained except at West Grand Boulevard, where the existing half-diamond interchange ramps would be replaced with improved local connectivity to the Lincoln Avenue interchange. Implementation of the project is proposed in phases over a 20-year period and the total costs of Alternatives 1 and 2 are estimated at $990 million to $1.0 billion and $1.35 billion to $1.43 billion, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the movement of vehicles and goods within the corridor to more effectively serve existing and future travel demand between and within Riverside and Orange Counties. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed improvements would permanently convert 17 to 20 acres of farmland and grazing land, convert two to three acres of federal wetlands, remove two to three acres of habitat for the California gnatcatcher, impact 27 to 35 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat, and increase impervious surface area by 120 to 171 acres. New right-of-way would require acquisition of 93 to 161 residences and 110 to 275 businesses. Noise levels in 2035 would exceed 75 decibels at an additional 34 to 41 locations. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110158, Volume I--1,459 pages and maps, Volume II (Appendices)--503 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 49 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254235?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - California Department of Transportation, San Bernardino, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 45 of 51] T2 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876254230; 14919-8_0045 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements on State Route 91 (SR-91) and Interstate 15 (I-15) in Riverside and Orange counties, California are proposed. SR-91 is the only major highway that provides the home-to-work connection for Riverside and San Bernardino County residents working in Orange and Los Angeles Counties. It is currently used by more than 280,000 vehicles per day at the Orange/Riverside County line and travel speeds are well below 30 miles per hour (mph) during peak travel periods. Traffic volumes are expected to increase by 50 percent by 2035. The SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project (CIP) would widen the existing highway from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange in the cities of Anaheim and Yorba Linda in Orange County to Pierce Street in the City of Riverside in Riverside County and improve I-15 in Riverside County between the I-15/Cajalco Road interchange and the I-15/Hidden Valley Parkway interchange in the City of Corona. Currently, SR-91 has four general purpose lanes in each direction, with those lanes varying in width from 11 to 12 feet from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange to the SR-91/ I-15 interchange, and three 12-foot-wide lanes in each direction from the SR-91/I-15 interchange to Pierce Street. In addition, there are two tolled express lanes and one high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction. The tolled express lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin in Orange County west of the SR-91/SR-55 interchange and end at the Orange/Riverside County line. The two HOV lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin where the tolled express lanes end just east of the Orange/Riverside County line and extend to Mary Street in the City of Riverside. This draft EIS evaluates two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. Both build alternatives would add one general purpose lane in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15 and would include improvements to I-15 between the Cajalco Road interchange and the Hidden Valley Parkway interchange. The two build alternatives would provide auxiliary lanes or collector-distributor roads at interchanges and would modify the existing interchange geometrics to improve traffic operations. The build alternatives would also upgrade existing SR-91 to standard shoulder, lane, and buffer widths where those upgrades can be accommodated. Under Alternative 1, the existing HOV facilities and tolled express lanes would be maintained in their current configurations. Alternative 2, which is the locally preferred alternative, would provide two tolled express lanes in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15. The existing HOV and express lanes would be incorporated into these two tolled express lanes. East of I-15, the HOV lanes in Alternative 1 and the tolled express lanes in Alternative 2 would transition to the existing HOV and general purpose lanes at Mary Street. Alternative 1 would provide one median HOV lane in each direction on I-15 between SR-91 and Ontario Avenue. Alternative 2 would provide one median tolled express lane in each direction on I-15 between Hidden Valley Parkway and Cajalco Road. Local access at the existing interchanges is expected to be maintained except at West Grand Boulevard, where the existing half-diamond interchange ramps would be replaced with improved local connectivity to the Lincoln Avenue interchange. Implementation of the project is proposed in phases over a 20-year period and the total costs of Alternatives 1 and 2 are estimated at $990 million to $1.0 billion and $1.35 billion to $1.43 billion, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the movement of vehicles and goods within the corridor to more effectively serve existing and future travel demand between and within Riverside and Orange Counties. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed improvements would permanently convert 17 to 20 acres of farmland and grazing land, convert two to three acres of federal wetlands, remove two to three acres of habitat for the California gnatcatcher, impact 27 to 35 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat, and increase impervious surface area by 120 to 171 acres. New right-of-way would require acquisition of 93 to 161 residences and 110 to 275 businesses. Noise levels in 2035 would exceed 75 decibels at an additional 34 to 41 locations. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110158, Volume I--1,459 pages and maps, Volume II (Appendices)--503 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 45 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254230?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - California Department of Transportation, San Bernardino, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 44 of 51] T2 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876254227; 14919-8_0044 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements on State Route 91 (SR-91) and Interstate 15 (I-15) in Riverside and Orange counties, California are proposed. SR-91 is the only major highway that provides the home-to-work connection for Riverside and San Bernardino County residents working in Orange and Los Angeles Counties. It is currently used by more than 280,000 vehicles per day at the Orange/Riverside County line and travel speeds are well below 30 miles per hour (mph) during peak travel periods. Traffic volumes are expected to increase by 50 percent by 2035. The SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project (CIP) would widen the existing highway from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange in the cities of Anaheim and Yorba Linda in Orange County to Pierce Street in the City of Riverside in Riverside County and improve I-15 in Riverside County between the I-15/Cajalco Road interchange and the I-15/Hidden Valley Parkway interchange in the City of Corona. Currently, SR-91 has four general purpose lanes in each direction, with those lanes varying in width from 11 to 12 feet from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange to the SR-91/ I-15 interchange, and three 12-foot-wide lanes in each direction from the SR-91/I-15 interchange to Pierce Street. In addition, there are two tolled express lanes and one high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction. The tolled express lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin in Orange County west of the SR-91/SR-55 interchange and end at the Orange/Riverside County line. The two HOV lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin where the tolled express lanes end just east of the Orange/Riverside County line and extend to Mary Street in the City of Riverside. This draft EIS evaluates two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. Both build alternatives would add one general purpose lane in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15 and would include improvements to I-15 between the Cajalco Road interchange and the Hidden Valley Parkway interchange. The two build alternatives would provide auxiliary lanes or collector-distributor roads at interchanges and would modify the existing interchange geometrics to improve traffic operations. The build alternatives would also upgrade existing SR-91 to standard shoulder, lane, and buffer widths where those upgrades can be accommodated. Under Alternative 1, the existing HOV facilities and tolled express lanes would be maintained in their current configurations. Alternative 2, which is the locally preferred alternative, would provide two tolled express lanes in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15. The existing HOV and express lanes would be incorporated into these two tolled express lanes. East of I-15, the HOV lanes in Alternative 1 and the tolled express lanes in Alternative 2 would transition to the existing HOV and general purpose lanes at Mary Street. Alternative 1 would provide one median HOV lane in each direction on I-15 between SR-91 and Ontario Avenue. Alternative 2 would provide one median tolled express lane in each direction on I-15 between Hidden Valley Parkway and Cajalco Road. Local access at the existing interchanges is expected to be maintained except at West Grand Boulevard, where the existing half-diamond interchange ramps would be replaced with improved local connectivity to the Lincoln Avenue interchange. Implementation of the project is proposed in phases over a 20-year period and the total costs of Alternatives 1 and 2 are estimated at $990 million to $1.0 billion and $1.35 billion to $1.43 billion, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the movement of vehicles and goods within the corridor to more effectively serve existing and future travel demand between and within Riverside and Orange Counties. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed improvements would permanently convert 17 to 20 acres of farmland and grazing land, convert two to three acres of federal wetlands, remove two to three acres of habitat for the California gnatcatcher, impact 27 to 35 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat, and increase impervious surface area by 120 to 171 acres. New right-of-way would require acquisition of 93 to 161 residences and 110 to 275 businesses. Noise levels in 2035 would exceed 75 decibels at an additional 34 to 41 locations. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110158, Volume I--1,459 pages and maps, Volume II (Appendices)--503 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 44 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254227?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - California Department of Transportation, San Bernardino, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 41 of 51] T2 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876254225; 14919-8_0041 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements on State Route 91 (SR-91) and Interstate 15 (I-15) in Riverside and Orange counties, California are proposed. SR-91 is the only major highway that provides the home-to-work connection for Riverside and San Bernardino County residents working in Orange and Los Angeles Counties. It is currently used by more than 280,000 vehicles per day at the Orange/Riverside County line and travel speeds are well below 30 miles per hour (mph) during peak travel periods. Traffic volumes are expected to increase by 50 percent by 2035. The SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project (CIP) would widen the existing highway from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange in the cities of Anaheim and Yorba Linda in Orange County to Pierce Street in the City of Riverside in Riverside County and improve I-15 in Riverside County between the I-15/Cajalco Road interchange and the I-15/Hidden Valley Parkway interchange in the City of Corona. Currently, SR-91 has four general purpose lanes in each direction, with those lanes varying in width from 11 to 12 feet from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange to the SR-91/ I-15 interchange, and three 12-foot-wide lanes in each direction from the SR-91/I-15 interchange to Pierce Street. In addition, there are two tolled express lanes and one high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction. The tolled express lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin in Orange County west of the SR-91/SR-55 interchange and end at the Orange/Riverside County line. The two HOV lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin where the tolled express lanes end just east of the Orange/Riverside County line and extend to Mary Street in the City of Riverside. This draft EIS evaluates two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. Both build alternatives would add one general purpose lane in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15 and would include improvements to I-15 between the Cajalco Road interchange and the Hidden Valley Parkway interchange. The two build alternatives would provide auxiliary lanes or collector-distributor roads at interchanges and would modify the existing interchange geometrics to improve traffic operations. The build alternatives would also upgrade existing SR-91 to standard shoulder, lane, and buffer widths where those upgrades can be accommodated. Under Alternative 1, the existing HOV facilities and tolled express lanes would be maintained in their current configurations. Alternative 2, which is the locally preferred alternative, would provide two tolled express lanes in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15. The existing HOV and express lanes would be incorporated into these two tolled express lanes. East of I-15, the HOV lanes in Alternative 1 and the tolled express lanes in Alternative 2 would transition to the existing HOV and general purpose lanes at Mary Street. Alternative 1 would provide one median HOV lane in each direction on I-15 between SR-91 and Ontario Avenue. Alternative 2 would provide one median tolled express lane in each direction on I-15 between Hidden Valley Parkway and Cajalco Road. Local access at the existing interchanges is expected to be maintained except at West Grand Boulevard, where the existing half-diamond interchange ramps would be replaced with improved local connectivity to the Lincoln Avenue interchange. Implementation of the project is proposed in phases over a 20-year period and the total costs of Alternatives 1 and 2 are estimated at $990 million to $1.0 billion and $1.35 billion to $1.43 billion, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the movement of vehicles and goods within the corridor to more effectively serve existing and future travel demand between and within Riverside and Orange Counties. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed improvements would permanently convert 17 to 20 acres of farmland and grazing land, convert two to three acres of federal wetlands, remove two to three acres of habitat for the California gnatcatcher, impact 27 to 35 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat, and increase impervious surface area by 120 to 171 acres. New right-of-way would require acquisition of 93 to 161 residences and 110 to 275 businesses. Noise levels in 2035 would exceed 75 decibels at an additional 34 to 41 locations. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110158, Volume I--1,459 pages and maps, Volume II (Appendices)--503 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 41 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254225?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - California Department of Transportation, San Bernardino, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 40 of 51] T2 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876254224; 14919-8_0040 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements on State Route 91 (SR-91) and Interstate 15 (I-15) in Riverside and Orange counties, California are proposed. SR-91 is the only major highway that provides the home-to-work connection for Riverside and San Bernardino County residents working in Orange and Los Angeles Counties. It is currently used by more than 280,000 vehicles per day at the Orange/Riverside County line and travel speeds are well below 30 miles per hour (mph) during peak travel periods. Traffic volumes are expected to increase by 50 percent by 2035. The SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project (CIP) would widen the existing highway from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange in the cities of Anaheim and Yorba Linda in Orange County to Pierce Street in the City of Riverside in Riverside County and improve I-15 in Riverside County between the I-15/Cajalco Road interchange and the I-15/Hidden Valley Parkway interchange in the City of Corona. Currently, SR-91 has four general purpose lanes in each direction, with those lanes varying in width from 11 to 12 feet from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange to the SR-91/ I-15 interchange, and three 12-foot-wide lanes in each direction from the SR-91/I-15 interchange to Pierce Street. In addition, there are two tolled express lanes and one high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction. The tolled express lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin in Orange County west of the SR-91/SR-55 interchange and end at the Orange/Riverside County line. The two HOV lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin where the tolled express lanes end just east of the Orange/Riverside County line and extend to Mary Street in the City of Riverside. This draft EIS evaluates two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. Both build alternatives would add one general purpose lane in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15 and would include improvements to I-15 between the Cajalco Road interchange and the Hidden Valley Parkway interchange. The two build alternatives would provide auxiliary lanes or collector-distributor roads at interchanges and would modify the existing interchange geometrics to improve traffic operations. The build alternatives would also upgrade existing SR-91 to standard shoulder, lane, and buffer widths where those upgrades can be accommodated. Under Alternative 1, the existing HOV facilities and tolled express lanes would be maintained in their current configurations. Alternative 2, which is the locally preferred alternative, would provide two tolled express lanes in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15. The existing HOV and express lanes would be incorporated into these two tolled express lanes. East of I-15, the HOV lanes in Alternative 1 and the tolled express lanes in Alternative 2 would transition to the existing HOV and general purpose lanes at Mary Street. Alternative 1 would provide one median HOV lane in each direction on I-15 between SR-91 and Ontario Avenue. Alternative 2 would provide one median tolled express lane in each direction on I-15 between Hidden Valley Parkway and Cajalco Road. Local access at the existing interchanges is expected to be maintained except at West Grand Boulevard, where the existing half-diamond interchange ramps would be replaced with improved local connectivity to the Lincoln Avenue interchange. Implementation of the project is proposed in phases over a 20-year period and the total costs of Alternatives 1 and 2 are estimated at $990 million to $1.0 billion and $1.35 billion to $1.43 billion, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the movement of vehicles and goods within the corridor to more effectively serve existing and future travel demand between and within Riverside and Orange Counties. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed improvements would permanently convert 17 to 20 acres of farmland and grazing land, convert two to three acres of federal wetlands, remove two to three acres of habitat for the California gnatcatcher, impact 27 to 35 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat, and increase impervious surface area by 120 to 171 acres. New right-of-way would require acquisition of 93 to 161 residences and 110 to 275 businesses. Noise levels in 2035 would exceed 75 decibels at an additional 34 to 41 locations. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110158, Volume I--1,459 pages and maps, Volume II (Appendices)--503 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 40 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254224?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - California Department of Transportation, San Bernardino, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 48 of 51] T2 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876253994; 14919-8_0048 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements on State Route 91 (SR-91) and Interstate 15 (I-15) in Riverside and Orange counties, California are proposed. SR-91 is the only major highway that provides the home-to-work connection for Riverside and San Bernardino County residents working in Orange and Los Angeles Counties. It is currently used by more than 280,000 vehicles per day at the Orange/Riverside County line and travel speeds are well below 30 miles per hour (mph) during peak travel periods. Traffic volumes are expected to increase by 50 percent by 2035. The SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project (CIP) would widen the existing highway from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange in the cities of Anaheim and Yorba Linda in Orange County to Pierce Street in the City of Riverside in Riverside County and improve I-15 in Riverside County between the I-15/Cajalco Road interchange and the I-15/Hidden Valley Parkway interchange in the City of Corona. Currently, SR-91 has four general purpose lanes in each direction, with those lanes varying in width from 11 to 12 feet from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange to the SR-91/ I-15 interchange, and three 12-foot-wide lanes in each direction from the SR-91/I-15 interchange to Pierce Street. In addition, there are two tolled express lanes and one high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction. The tolled express lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin in Orange County west of the SR-91/SR-55 interchange and end at the Orange/Riverside County line. The two HOV lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin where the tolled express lanes end just east of the Orange/Riverside County line and extend to Mary Street in the City of Riverside. This draft EIS evaluates two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. Both build alternatives would add one general purpose lane in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15 and would include improvements to I-15 between the Cajalco Road interchange and the Hidden Valley Parkway interchange. The two build alternatives would provide auxiliary lanes or collector-distributor roads at interchanges and would modify the existing interchange geometrics to improve traffic operations. The build alternatives would also upgrade existing SR-91 to standard shoulder, lane, and buffer widths where those upgrades can be accommodated. Under Alternative 1, the existing HOV facilities and tolled express lanes would be maintained in their current configurations. Alternative 2, which is the locally preferred alternative, would provide two tolled express lanes in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15. The existing HOV and express lanes would be incorporated into these two tolled express lanes. East of I-15, the HOV lanes in Alternative 1 and the tolled express lanes in Alternative 2 would transition to the existing HOV and general purpose lanes at Mary Street. Alternative 1 would provide one median HOV lane in each direction on I-15 between SR-91 and Ontario Avenue. Alternative 2 would provide one median tolled express lane in each direction on I-15 between Hidden Valley Parkway and Cajalco Road. Local access at the existing interchanges is expected to be maintained except at West Grand Boulevard, where the existing half-diamond interchange ramps would be replaced with improved local connectivity to the Lincoln Avenue interchange. Implementation of the project is proposed in phases over a 20-year period and the total costs of Alternatives 1 and 2 are estimated at $990 million to $1.0 billion and $1.35 billion to $1.43 billion, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the movement of vehicles and goods within the corridor to more effectively serve existing and future travel demand between and within Riverside and Orange Counties. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed improvements would permanently convert 17 to 20 acres of farmland and grazing land, convert two to three acres of federal wetlands, remove two to three acres of habitat for the California gnatcatcher, impact 27 to 35 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat, and increase impervious surface area by 120 to 171 acres. New right-of-way would require acquisition of 93 to 161 residences and 110 to 275 businesses. Noise levels in 2035 would exceed 75 decibels at an additional 34 to 41 locations. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110158, Volume I--1,459 pages and maps, Volume II (Appendices)--503 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 48 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876253994?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - California Department of Transportation, San Bernardino, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 14 of 19] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876252196; 14921-0_0014 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,510 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the city of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. The proposed project would involve construction of 10,210 residential units at various densities on 1,477 acres; 362.8 acres designated for commercial and industrial use, including a regional shopping center; public/quasi-public uses; elementary, middle, and high schools on 179.3 acres; 121.7 acres of community and neighborhood parks; stormwater detention basins; 1,053.1 acres of open-space areas and open-space preserves; and major roads with landscaping. The project would require a water supply of not more than 5,600 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. The acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River is proposed in order to provide a reliable water supply for the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 10 additional water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. Under the Resource Impact Minimization Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed thus allowing for a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but the total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide residential housing and expand Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos, rocks, and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. 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 10-0335D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110160, Final EIS--204 pages, Appendices--733 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Land Use KW - Municipal Services KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment 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/876252196?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+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, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 13 of 19] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876252191; 14921-0_0013 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,510 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the city of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. The proposed project would involve construction of 10,210 residential units at various densities on 1,477 acres; 362.8 acres designated for commercial and industrial use, including a regional shopping center; public/quasi-public uses; elementary, middle, and high schools on 179.3 acres; 121.7 acres of community and neighborhood parks; stormwater detention basins; 1,053.1 acres of open-space areas and open-space preserves; and major roads with landscaping. The project would require a water supply of not more than 5,600 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. The acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River is proposed in order to provide a reliable water supply for the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 10 additional water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. Under the Resource Impact Minimization Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed thus allowing for a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but the total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide residential housing and expand Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos, rocks, and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. 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 10-0335D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110160, Final EIS--204 pages, Appendices--733 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Land Use KW - Municipal Services KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment 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/876252191?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+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, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 12 of 19] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876252189; 14921-0_0012 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,510 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the city of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. The proposed project would involve construction of 10,210 residential units at various densities on 1,477 acres; 362.8 acres designated for commercial and industrial use, including a regional shopping center; public/quasi-public uses; elementary, middle, and high schools on 179.3 acres; 121.7 acres of community and neighborhood parks; stormwater detention basins; 1,053.1 acres of open-space areas and open-space preserves; and major roads with landscaping. The project would require a water supply of not more than 5,600 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. The acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River is proposed in order to provide a reliable water supply for the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 10 additional water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. Under the Resource Impact Minimization Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed thus allowing for a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but the total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide residential housing and expand Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos, rocks, and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. 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 10-0335D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110160, Final EIS--204 pages, Appendices--733 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Land Use KW - Municipal Services KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment 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/876252189?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+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, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 11 of 19] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876252187; 14921-0_0011 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,510 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the city of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. The proposed project would involve construction of 10,210 residential units at various densities on 1,477 acres; 362.8 acres designated for commercial and industrial use, including a regional shopping center; public/quasi-public uses; elementary, middle, and high schools on 179.3 acres; 121.7 acres of community and neighborhood parks; stormwater detention basins; 1,053.1 acres of open-space areas and open-space preserves; and major roads with landscaping. The project would require a water supply of not more than 5,600 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. The acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River is proposed in order to provide a reliable water supply for the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 10 additional water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. Under the Resource Impact Minimization Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed thus allowing for a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but the total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide residential housing and expand Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos, rocks, and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. 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 10-0335D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110160, Final EIS--204 pages, Appendices--733 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Land Use KW - Municipal Services KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment 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/876252187?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+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, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 38 of 51] T2 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876251758; 14919-8_0038 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements on State Route 91 (SR-91) and Interstate 15 (I-15) in Riverside and Orange counties, California are proposed. SR-91 is the only major highway that provides the home-to-work connection for Riverside and San Bernardino County residents working in Orange and Los Angeles Counties. It is currently used by more than 280,000 vehicles per day at the Orange/Riverside County line and travel speeds are well below 30 miles per hour (mph) during peak travel periods. Traffic volumes are expected to increase by 50 percent by 2035. The SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project (CIP) would widen the existing highway from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange in the cities of Anaheim and Yorba Linda in Orange County to Pierce Street in the City of Riverside in Riverside County and improve I-15 in Riverside County between the I-15/Cajalco Road interchange and the I-15/Hidden Valley Parkway interchange in the City of Corona. Currently, SR-91 has four general purpose lanes in each direction, with those lanes varying in width from 11 to 12 feet from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange to the SR-91/ I-15 interchange, and three 12-foot-wide lanes in each direction from the SR-91/I-15 interchange to Pierce Street. In addition, there are two tolled express lanes and one high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction. The tolled express lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin in Orange County west of the SR-91/SR-55 interchange and end at the Orange/Riverside County line. The two HOV lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin where the tolled express lanes end just east of the Orange/Riverside County line and extend to Mary Street in the City of Riverside. This draft EIS evaluates two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. Both build alternatives would add one general purpose lane in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15 and would include improvements to I-15 between the Cajalco Road interchange and the Hidden Valley Parkway interchange. The two build alternatives would provide auxiliary lanes or collector-distributor roads at interchanges and would modify the existing interchange geometrics to improve traffic operations. The build alternatives would also upgrade existing SR-91 to standard shoulder, lane, and buffer widths where those upgrades can be accommodated. Under Alternative 1, the existing HOV facilities and tolled express lanes would be maintained in their current configurations. Alternative 2, which is the locally preferred alternative, would provide two tolled express lanes in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15. The existing HOV and express lanes would be incorporated into these two tolled express lanes. East of I-15, the HOV lanes in Alternative 1 and the tolled express lanes in Alternative 2 would transition to the existing HOV and general purpose lanes at Mary Street. Alternative 1 would provide one median HOV lane in each direction on I-15 between SR-91 and Ontario Avenue. Alternative 2 would provide one median tolled express lane in each direction on I-15 between Hidden Valley Parkway and Cajalco Road. Local access at the existing interchanges is expected to be maintained except at West Grand Boulevard, where the existing half-diamond interchange ramps would be replaced with improved local connectivity to the Lincoln Avenue interchange. Implementation of the project is proposed in phases over a 20-year period and the total costs of Alternatives 1 and 2 are estimated at $990 million to $1.0 billion and $1.35 billion to $1.43 billion, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the movement of vehicles and goods within the corridor to more effectively serve existing and future travel demand between and within Riverside and Orange Counties. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed improvements would permanently convert 17 to 20 acres of farmland and grazing land, convert two to three acres of federal wetlands, remove two to three acres of habitat for the California gnatcatcher, impact 27 to 35 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat, and increase impervious surface area by 120 to 171 acres. New right-of-way would require acquisition of 93 to 161 residences and 110 to 275 businesses. Noise levels in 2035 would exceed 75 decibels at an additional 34 to 41 locations. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110158, Volume I--1,459 pages and maps, Volume II (Appendices)--503 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 38 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876251758?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - California Department of Transportation, San Bernardino, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 37 of 51] T2 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876251753; 14919-8_0037 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements on State Route 91 (SR-91) and Interstate 15 (I-15) in Riverside and Orange counties, California are proposed. SR-91 is the only major highway that provides the home-to-work connection for Riverside and San Bernardino County residents working in Orange and Los Angeles Counties. It is currently used by more than 280,000 vehicles per day at the Orange/Riverside County line and travel speeds are well below 30 miles per hour (mph) during peak travel periods. Traffic volumes are expected to increase by 50 percent by 2035. The SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project (CIP) would widen the existing highway from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange in the cities of Anaheim and Yorba Linda in Orange County to Pierce Street in the City of Riverside in Riverside County and improve I-15 in Riverside County between the I-15/Cajalco Road interchange and the I-15/Hidden Valley Parkway interchange in the City of Corona. Currently, SR-91 has four general purpose lanes in each direction, with those lanes varying in width from 11 to 12 feet from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange to the SR-91/ I-15 interchange, and three 12-foot-wide lanes in each direction from the SR-91/I-15 interchange to Pierce Street. In addition, there are two tolled express lanes and one high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction. The tolled express lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin in Orange County west of the SR-91/SR-55 interchange and end at the Orange/Riverside County line. The two HOV lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin where the tolled express lanes end just east of the Orange/Riverside County line and extend to Mary Street in the City of Riverside. This draft EIS evaluates two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. Both build alternatives would add one general purpose lane in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15 and would include improvements to I-15 between the Cajalco Road interchange and the Hidden Valley Parkway interchange. The two build alternatives would provide auxiliary lanes or collector-distributor roads at interchanges and would modify the existing interchange geometrics to improve traffic operations. The build alternatives would also upgrade existing SR-91 to standard shoulder, lane, and buffer widths where those upgrades can be accommodated. Under Alternative 1, the existing HOV facilities and tolled express lanes would be maintained in their current configurations. Alternative 2, which is the locally preferred alternative, would provide two tolled express lanes in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15. The existing HOV and express lanes would be incorporated into these two tolled express lanes. East of I-15, the HOV lanes in Alternative 1 and the tolled express lanes in Alternative 2 would transition to the existing HOV and general purpose lanes at Mary Street. Alternative 1 would provide one median HOV lane in each direction on I-15 between SR-91 and Ontario Avenue. Alternative 2 would provide one median tolled express lane in each direction on I-15 between Hidden Valley Parkway and Cajalco Road. Local access at the existing interchanges is expected to be maintained except at West Grand Boulevard, where the existing half-diamond interchange ramps would be replaced with improved local connectivity to the Lincoln Avenue interchange. Implementation of the project is proposed in phases over a 20-year period and the total costs of Alternatives 1 and 2 are estimated at $990 million to $1.0 billion and $1.35 billion to $1.43 billion, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the movement of vehicles and goods within the corridor to more effectively serve existing and future travel demand between and within Riverside and Orange Counties. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed improvements would permanently convert 17 to 20 acres of farmland and grazing land, convert two to three acres of federal wetlands, remove two to three acres of habitat for the California gnatcatcher, impact 27 to 35 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat, and increase impervious surface area by 120 to 171 acres. New right-of-way would require acquisition of 93 to 161 residences and 110 to 275 businesses. Noise levels in 2035 would exceed 75 decibels at an additional 34 to 41 locations. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110158, Volume I--1,459 pages and maps, Volume II (Appendices)--503 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 37 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876251753?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - California Department of Transportation, San Bernardino, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 27 of 51] T2 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876251750; 14919-8_0027 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements on State Route 91 (SR-91) and Interstate 15 (I-15) in Riverside and Orange counties, California are proposed. SR-91 is the only major highway that provides the home-to-work connection for Riverside and San Bernardino County residents working in Orange and Los Angeles Counties. It is currently used by more than 280,000 vehicles per day at the Orange/Riverside County line and travel speeds are well below 30 miles per hour (mph) during peak travel periods. Traffic volumes are expected to increase by 50 percent by 2035. The SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project (CIP) would widen the existing highway from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange in the cities of Anaheim and Yorba Linda in Orange County to Pierce Street in the City of Riverside in Riverside County and improve I-15 in Riverside County between the I-15/Cajalco Road interchange and the I-15/Hidden Valley Parkway interchange in the City of Corona. Currently, SR-91 has four general purpose lanes in each direction, with those lanes varying in width from 11 to 12 feet from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange to the SR-91/ I-15 interchange, and three 12-foot-wide lanes in each direction from the SR-91/I-15 interchange to Pierce Street. In addition, there are two tolled express lanes and one high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction. The tolled express lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin in Orange County west of the SR-91/SR-55 interchange and end at the Orange/Riverside County line. The two HOV lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin where the tolled express lanes end just east of the Orange/Riverside County line and extend to Mary Street in the City of Riverside. This draft EIS evaluates two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. Both build alternatives would add one general purpose lane in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15 and would include improvements to I-15 between the Cajalco Road interchange and the Hidden Valley Parkway interchange. The two build alternatives would provide auxiliary lanes or collector-distributor roads at interchanges and would modify the existing interchange geometrics to improve traffic operations. The build alternatives would also upgrade existing SR-91 to standard shoulder, lane, and buffer widths where those upgrades can be accommodated. Under Alternative 1, the existing HOV facilities and tolled express lanes would be maintained in their current configurations. Alternative 2, which is the locally preferred alternative, would provide two tolled express lanes in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15. The existing HOV and express lanes would be incorporated into these two tolled express lanes. East of I-15, the HOV lanes in Alternative 1 and the tolled express lanes in Alternative 2 would transition to the existing HOV and general purpose lanes at Mary Street. Alternative 1 would provide one median HOV lane in each direction on I-15 between SR-91 and Ontario Avenue. Alternative 2 would provide one median tolled express lane in each direction on I-15 between Hidden Valley Parkway and Cajalco Road. Local access at the existing interchanges is expected to be maintained except at West Grand Boulevard, where the existing half-diamond interchange ramps would be replaced with improved local connectivity to the Lincoln Avenue interchange. Implementation of the project is proposed in phases over a 20-year period and the total costs of Alternatives 1 and 2 are estimated at $990 million to $1.0 billion and $1.35 billion to $1.43 billion, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the movement of vehicles and goods within the corridor to more effectively serve existing and future travel demand between and within Riverside and Orange Counties. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed improvements would permanently convert 17 to 20 acres of farmland and grazing land, convert two to three acres of federal wetlands, remove two to three acres of habitat for the California gnatcatcher, impact 27 to 35 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat, and increase impervious surface area by 120 to 171 acres. New right-of-way would require acquisition of 93 to 161 residences and 110 to 275 businesses. Noise levels in 2035 would exceed 75 decibels at an additional 34 to 41 locations. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110158, Volume I--1,459 pages and maps, Volume II (Appendices)--503 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 27 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876251750?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - California Department of Transportation, San Bernardino, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 26 of 51] T2 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876251747; 14919-8_0026 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements on State Route 91 (SR-91) and Interstate 15 (I-15) in Riverside and Orange counties, California are proposed. SR-91 is the only major highway that provides the home-to-work connection for Riverside and San Bernardino County residents working in Orange and Los Angeles Counties. It is currently used by more than 280,000 vehicles per day at the Orange/Riverside County line and travel speeds are well below 30 miles per hour (mph) during peak travel periods. Traffic volumes are expected to increase by 50 percent by 2035. The SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project (CIP) would widen the existing highway from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange in the cities of Anaheim and Yorba Linda in Orange County to Pierce Street in the City of Riverside in Riverside County and improve I-15 in Riverside County between the I-15/Cajalco Road interchange and the I-15/Hidden Valley Parkway interchange in the City of Corona. Currently, SR-91 has four general purpose lanes in each direction, with those lanes varying in width from 11 to 12 feet from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange to the SR-91/ I-15 interchange, and three 12-foot-wide lanes in each direction from the SR-91/I-15 interchange to Pierce Street. In addition, there are two tolled express lanes and one high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction. The tolled express lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin in Orange County west of the SR-91/SR-55 interchange and end at the Orange/Riverside County line. The two HOV lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin where the tolled express lanes end just east of the Orange/Riverside County line and extend to Mary Street in the City of Riverside. This draft EIS evaluates two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. Both build alternatives would add one general purpose lane in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15 and would include improvements to I-15 between the Cajalco Road interchange and the Hidden Valley Parkway interchange. The two build alternatives would provide auxiliary lanes or collector-distributor roads at interchanges and would modify the existing interchange geometrics to improve traffic operations. The build alternatives would also upgrade existing SR-91 to standard shoulder, lane, and buffer widths where those upgrades can be accommodated. Under Alternative 1, the existing HOV facilities and tolled express lanes would be maintained in their current configurations. Alternative 2, which is the locally preferred alternative, would provide two tolled express lanes in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15. The existing HOV and express lanes would be incorporated into these two tolled express lanes. East of I-15, the HOV lanes in Alternative 1 and the tolled express lanes in Alternative 2 would transition to the existing HOV and general purpose lanes at Mary Street. Alternative 1 would provide one median HOV lane in each direction on I-15 between SR-91 and Ontario Avenue. Alternative 2 would provide one median tolled express lane in each direction on I-15 between Hidden Valley Parkway and Cajalco Road. Local access at the existing interchanges is expected to be maintained except at West Grand Boulevard, where the existing half-diamond interchange ramps would be replaced with improved local connectivity to the Lincoln Avenue interchange. Implementation of the project is proposed in phases over a 20-year period and the total costs of Alternatives 1 and 2 are estimated at $990 million to $1.0 billion and $1.35 billion to $1.43 billion, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the movement of vehicles and goods within the corridor to more effectively serve existing and future travel demand between and within Riverside and Orange Counties. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed improvements would permanently convert 17 to 20 acres of farmland and grazing land, convert two to three acres of federal wetlands, remove two to three acres of habitat for the California gnatcatcher, impact 27 to 35 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat, and increase impervious surface area by 120 to 171 acres. New right-of-way would require acquisition of 93 to 161 residences and 110 to 275 businesses. Noise levels in 2035 would exceed 75 decibels at an additional 34 to 41 locations. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110158, Volume I--1,459 pages and maps, Volume II (Appendices)--503 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 26 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876251747?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - California Department of Transportation, San Bernardino, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 25 of 51] T2 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876251744; 14919-8_0025 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements on State Route 91 (SR-91) and Interstate 15 (I-15) in Riverside and Orange counties, California are proposed. SR-91 is the only major highway that provides the home-to-work connection for Riverside and San Bernardino County residents working in Orange and Los Angeles Counties. It is currently used by more than 280,000 vehicles per day at the Orange/Riverside County line and travel speeds are well below 30 miles per hour (mph) during peak travel periods. Traffic volumes are expected to increase by 50 percent by 2035. The SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project (CIP) would widen the existing highway from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange in the cities of Anaheim and Yorba Linda in Orange County to Pierce Street in the City of Riverside in Riverside County and improve I-15 in Riverside County between the I-15/Cajalco Road interchange and the I-15/Hidden Valley Parkway interchange in the City of Corona. Currently, SR-91 has four general purpose lanes in each direction, with those lanes varying in width from 11 to 12 feet from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange to the SR-91/ I-15 interchange, and three 12-foot-wide lanes in each direction from the SR-91/I-15 interchange to Pierce Street. In addition, there are two tolled express lanes and one high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction. The tolled express lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin in Orange County west of the SR-91/SR-55 interchange and end at the Orange/Riverside County line. The two HOV lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin where the tolled express lanes end just east of the Orange/Riverside County line and extend to Mary Street in the City of Riverside. This draft EIS evaluates two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. Both build alternatives would add one general purpose lane in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15 and would include improvements to I-15 between the Cajalco Road interchange and the Hidden Valley Parkway interchange. The two build alternatives would provide auxiliary lanes or collector-distributor roads at interchanges and would modify the existing interchange geometrics to improve traffic operations. The build alternatives would also upgrade existing SR-91 to standard shoulder, lane, and buffer widths where those upgrades can be accommodated. Under Alternative 1, the existing HOV facilities and tolled express lanes would be maintained in their current configurations. Alternative 2, which is the locally preferred alternative, would provide two tolled express lanes in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15. The existing HOV and express lanes would be incorporated into these two tolled express lanes. East of I-15, the HOV lanes in Alternative 1 and the tolled express lanes in Alternative 2 would transition to the existing HOV and general purpose lanes at Mary Street. Alternative 1 would provide one median HOV lane in each direction on I-15 between SR-91 and Ontario Avenue. Alternative 2 would provide one median tolled express lane in each direction on I-15 between Hidden Valley Parkway and Cajalco Road. Local access at the existing interchanges is expected to be maintained except at West Grand Boulevard, where the existing half-diamond interchange ramps would be replaced with improved local connectivity to the Lincoln Avenue interchange. Implementation of the project is proposed in phases over a 20-year period and the total costs of Alternatives 1 and 2 are estimated at $990 million to $1.0 billion and $1.35 billion to $1.43 billion, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the movement of vehicles and goods within the corridor to more effectively serve existing and future travel demand between and within Riverside and Orange Counties. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed improvements would permanently convert 17 to 20 acres of farmland and grazing land, convert two to three acres of federal wetlands, remove two to three acres of habitat for the California gnatcatcher, impact 27 to 35 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat, and increase impervious surface area by 120 to 171 acres. New right-of-way would require acquisition of 93 to 161 residences and 110 to 275 businesses. Noise levels in 2035 would exceed 75 decibels at an additional 34 to 41 locations. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110158, Volume I--1,459 pages and maps, Volume II (Appendices)--503 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 25 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876251744?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - California Department of Transportation, San Bernardino, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 23 of 51] T2 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876251743; 14919-8_0023 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements on State Route 91 (SR-91) and Interstate 15 (I-15) in Riverside and Orange counties, California are proposed. SR-91 is the only major highway that provides the home-to-work connection for Riverside and San Bernardino County residents working in Orange and Los Angeles Counties. It is currently used by more than 280,000 vehicles per day at the Orange/Riverside County line and travel speeds are well below 30 miles per hour (mph) during peak travel periods. Traffic volumes are expected to increase by 50 percent by 2035. The SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project (CIP) would widen the existing highway from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange in the cities of Anaheim and Yorba Linda in Orange County to Pierce Street in the City of Riverside in Riverside County and improve I-15 in Riverside County between the I-15/Cajalco Road interchange and the I-15/Hidden Valley Parkway interchange in the City of Corona. Currently, SR-91 has four general purpose lanes in each direction, with those lanes varying in width from 11 to 12 feet from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange to the SR-91/ I-15 interchange, and three 12-foot-wide lanes in each direction from the SR-91/I-15 interchange to Pierce Street. In addition, there are two tolled express lanes and one high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction. The tolled express lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin in Orange County west of the SR-91/SR-55 interchange and end at the Orange/Riverside County line. The two HOV lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin where the tolled express lanes end just east of the Orange/Riverside County line and extend to Mary Street in the City of Riverside. This draft EIS evaluates two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. Both build alternatives would add one general purpose lane in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15 and would include improvements to I-15 between the Cajalco Road interchange and the Hidden Valley Parkway interchange. The two build alternatives would provide auxiliary lanes or collector-distributor roads at interchanges and would modify the existing interchange geometrics to improve traffic operations. The build alternatives would also upgrade existing SR-91 to standard shoulder, lane, and buffer widths where those upgrades can be accommodated. Under Alternative 1, the existing HOV facilities and tolled express lanes would be maintained in their current configurations. Alternative 2, which is the locally preferred alternative, would provide two tolled express lanes in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15. The existing HOV and express lanes would be incorporated into these two tolled express lanes. East of I-15, the HOV lanes in Alternative 1 and the tolled express lanes in Alternative 2 would transition to the existing HOV and general purpose lanes at Mary Street. Alternative 1 would provide one median HOV lane in each direction on I-15 between SR-91 and Ontario Avenue. Alternative 2 would provide one median tolled express lane in each direction on I-15 between Hidden Valley Parkway and Cajalco Road. Local access at the existing interchanges is expected to be maintained except at West Grand Boulevard, where the existing half-diamond interchange ramps would be replaced with improved local connectivity to the Lincoln Avenue interchange. Implementation of the project is proposed in phases over a 20-year period and the total costs of Alternatives 1 and 2 are estimated at $990 million to $1.0 billion and $1.35 billion to $1.43 billion, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the movement of vehicles and goods within the corridor to more effectively serve existing and future travel demand between and within Riverside and Orange Counties. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed improvements would permanently convert 17 to 20 acres of farmland and grazing land, convert two to three acres of federal wetlands, remove two to three acres of habitat for the California gnatcatcher, impact 27 to 35 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat, and increase impervious surface area by 120 to 171 acres. New right-of-way would require acquisition of 93 to 161 residences and 110 to 275 businesses. Noise levels in 2035 would exceed 75 decibels at an additional 34 to 41 locations. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110158, Volume I--1,459 pages and maps, Volume II (Appendices)--503 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 23 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876251743?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - California Department of Transportation, San Bernardino, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 22 of 51] T2 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876251740; 14919-8_0022 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements on State Route 91 (SR-91) and Interstate 15 (I-15) in Riverside and Orange counties, California are proposed. SR-91 is the only major highway that provides the home-to-work connection for Riverside and San Bernardino County residents working in Orange and Los Angeles Counties. It is currently used by more than 280,000 vehicles per day at the Orange/Riverside County line and travel speeds are well below 30 miles per hour (mph) during peak travel periods. Traffic volumes are expected to increase by 50 percent by 2035. The SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project (CIP) would widen the existing highway from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange in the cities of Anaheim and Yorba Linda in Orange County to Pierce Street in the City of Riverside in Riverside County and improve I-15 in Riverside County between the I-15/Cajalco Road interchange and the I-15/Hidden Valley Parkway interchange in the City of Corona. Currently, SR-91 has four general purpose lanes in each direction, with those lanes varying in width from 11 to 12 feet from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange to the SR-91/ I-15 interchange, and three 12-foot-wide lanes in each direction from the SR-91/I-15 interchange to Pierce Street. In addition, there are two tolled express lanes and one high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction. The tolled express lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin in Orange County west of the SR-91/SR-55 interchange and end at the Orange/Riverside County line. The two HOV lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin where the tolled express lanes end just east of the Orange/Riverside County line and extend to Mary Street in the City of Riverside. This draft EIS evaluates two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. Both build alternatives would add one general purpose lane in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15 and would include improvements to I-15 between the Cajalco Road interchange and the Hidden Valley Parkway interchange. The two build alternatives would provide auxiliary lanes or collector-distributor roads at interchanges and would modify the existing interchange geometrics to improve traffic operations. The build alternatives would also upgrade existing SR-91 to standard shoulder, lane, and buffer widths where those upgrades can be accommodated. Under Alternative 1, the existing HOV facilities and tolled express lanes would be maintained in their current configurations. Alternative 2, which is the locally preferred alternative, would provide two tolled express lanes in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15. The existing HOV and express lanes would be incorporated into these two tolled express lanes. East of I-15, the HOV lanes in Alternative 1 and the tolled express lanes in Alternative 2 would transition to the existing HOV and general purpose lanes at Mary Street. Alternative 1 would provide one median HOV lane in each direction on I-15 between SR-91 and Ontario Avenue. Alternative 2 would provide one median tolled express lane in each direction on I-15 between Hidden Valley Parkway and Cajalco Road. Local access at the existing interchanges is expected to be maintained except at West Grand Boulevard, where the existing half-diamond interchange ramps would be replaced with improved local connectivity to the Lincoln Avenue interchange. Implementation of the project is proposed in phases over a 20-year period and the total costs of Alternatives 1 and 2 are estimated at $990 million to $1.0 billion and $1.35 billion to $1.43 billion, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the movement of vehicles and goods within the corridor to more effectively serve existing and future travel demand between and within Riverside and Orange Counties. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed improvements would permanently convert 17 to 20 acres of farmland and grazing land, convert two to three acres of federal wetlands, remove two to three acres of habitat for the California gnatcatcher, impact 27 to 35 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat, and increase impervious surface area by 120 to 171 acres. New right-of-way would require acquisition of 93 to 161 residences and 110 to 275 businesses. Noise levels in 2035 would exceed 75 decibels at an additional 34 to 41 locations. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110158, Volume I--1,459 pages and maps, Volume II (Appendices)--503 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 22 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876251740?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - California Department of Transportation, San Bernardino, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 18 of 19] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876249149; 14921-0_0018 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,510 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the city of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. The proposed project would involve construction of 10,210 residential units at various densities on 1,477 acres; 362.8 acres designated for commercial and industrial use, including a regional shopping center; public/quasi-public uses; elementary, middle, and high schools on 179.3 acres; 121.7 acres of community and neighborhood parks; stormwater detention basins; 1,053.1 acres of open-space areas and open-space preserves; and major roads with landscaping. The project would require a water supply of not more than 5,600 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. The acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River is proposed in order to provide a reliable water supply for the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 10 additional water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. Under the Resource Impact Minimization Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed thus allowing for a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but the total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide residential housing and expand Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos, rocks, and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. 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 10-0335D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110160, Final EIS--204 pages, Appendices--733 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 18 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Land Use KW - Municipal Services KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment 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/876249149?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+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, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 21 of 51] T2 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876249145; 14919-8_0021 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements on State Route 91 (SR-91) and Interstate 15 (I-15) in Riverside and Orange counties, California are proposed. SR-91 is the only major highway that provides the home-to-work connection for Riverside and San Bernardino County residents working in Orange and Los Angeles Counties. It is currently used by more than 280,000 vehicles per day at the Orange/Riverside County line and travel speeds are well below 30 miles per hour (mph) during peak travel periods. Traffic volumes are expected to increase by 50 percent by 2035. The SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project (CIP) would widen the existing highway from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange in the cities of Anaheim and Yorba Linda in Orange County to Pierce Street in the City of Riverside in Riverside County and improve I-15 in Riverside County between the I-15/Cajalco Road interchange and the I-15/Hidden Valley Parkway interchange in the City of Corona. Currently, SR-91 has four general purpose lanes in each direction, with those lanes varying in width from 11 to 12 feet from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange to the SR-91/ I-15 interchange, and three 12-foot-wide lanes in each direction from the SR-91/I-15 interchange to Pierce Street. In addition, there are two tolled express lanes and one high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction. The tolled express lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin in Orange County west of the SR-91/SR-55 interchange and end at the Orange/Riverside County line. The two HOV lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin where the tolled express lanes end just east of the Orange/Riverside County line and extend to Mary Street in the City of Riverside. This draft EIS evaluates two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. Both build alternatives would add one general purpose lane in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15 and would include improvements to I-15 between the Cajalco Road interchange and the Hidden Valley Parkway interchange. The two build alternatives would provide auxiliary lanes or collector-distributor roads at interchanges and would modify the existing interchange geometrics to improve traffic operations. The build alternatives would also upgrade existing SR-91 to standard shoulder, lane, and buffer widths where those upgrades can be accommodated. Under Alternative 1, the existing HOV facilities and tolled express lanes would be maintained in their current configurations. Alternative 2, which is the locally preferred alternative, would provide two tolled express lanes in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15. The existing HOV and express lanes would be incorporated into these two tolled express lanes. East of I-15, the HOV lanes in Alternative 1 and the tolled express lanes in Alternative 2 would transition to the existing HOV and general purpose lanes at Mary Street. Alternative 1 would provide one median HOV lane in each direction on I-15 between SR-91 and Ontario Avenue. Alternative 2 would provide one median tolled express lane in each direction on I-15 between Hidden Valley Parkway and Cajalco Road. Local access at the existing interchanges is expected to be maintained except at West Grand Boulevard, where the existing half-diamond interchange ramps would be replaced with improved local connectivity to the Lincoln Avenue interchange. Implementation of the project is proposed in phases over a 20-year period and the total costs of Alternatives 1 and 2 are estimated at $990 million to $1.0 billion and $1.35 billion to $1.43 billion, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the movement of vehicles and goods within the corridor to more effectively serve existing and future travel demand between and within Riverside and Orange Counties. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed improvements would permanently convert 17 to 20 acres of farmland and grazing land, convert two to three acres of federal wetlands, remove two to three acres of habitat for the California gnatcatcher, impact 27 to 35 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat, and increase impervious surface area by 120 to 171 acres. New right-of-way would require acquisition of 93 to 161 residences and 110 to 275 businesses. Noise levels in 2035 would exceed 75 decibels at an additional 34 to 41 locations. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110158, Volume I--1,459 pages and maps, Volume II (Appendices)--503 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 21 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876249145?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - California Department of Transportation, San Bernardino, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 20 of 51] T2 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876249142; 14919-8_0020 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements on State Route 91 (SR-91) and Interstate 15 (I-15) in Riverside and Orange counties, California are proposed. SR-91 is the only major highway that provides the home-to-work connection for Riverside and San Bernardino County residents working in Orange and Los Angeles Counties. It is currently used by more than 280,000 vehicles per day at the Orange/Riverside County line and travel speeds are well below 30 miles per hour (mph) during peak travel periods. Traffic volumes are expected to increase by 50 percent by 2035. The SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project (CIP) would widen the existing highway from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange in the cities of Anaheim and Yorba Linda in Orange County to Pierce Street in the City of Riverside in Riverside County and improve I-15 in Riverside County between the I-15/Cajalco Road interchange and the I-15/Hidden Valley Parkway interchange in the City of Corona. Currently, SR-91 has four general purpose lanes in each direction, with those lanes varying in width from 11 to 12 feet from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange to the SR-91/ I-15 interchange, and three 12-foot-wide lanes in each direction from the SR-91/I-15 interchange to Pierce Street. In addition, there are two tolled express lanes and one high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction. The tolled express lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin in Orange County west of the SR-91/SR-55 interchange and end at the Orange/Riverside County line. The two HOV lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin where the tolled express lanes end just east of the Orange/Riverside County line and extend to Mary Street in the City of Riverside. This draft EIS evaluates two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. Both build alternatives would add one general purpose lane in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15 and would include improvements to I-15 between the Cajalco Road interchange and the Hidden Valley Parkway interchange. The two build alternatives would provide auxiliary lanes or collector-distributor roads at interchanges and would modify the existing interchange geometrics to improve traffic operations. The build alternatives would also upgrade existing SR-91 to standard shoulder, lane, and buffer widths where those upgrades can be accommodated. Under Alternative 1, the existing HOV facilities and tolled express lanes would be maintained in their current configurations. Alternative 2, which is the locally preferred alternative, would provide two tolled express lanes in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15. The existing HOV and express lanes would be incorporated into these two tolled express lanes. East of I-15, the HOV lanes in Alternative 1 and the tolled express lanes in Alternative 2 would transition to the existing HOV and general purpose lanes at Mary Street. Alternative 1 would provide one median HOV lane in each direction on I-15 between SR-91 and Ontario Avenue. Alternative 2 would provide one median tolled express lane in each direction on I-15 between Hidden Valley Parkway and Cajalco Road. Local access at the existing interchanges is expected to be maintained except at West Grand Boulevard, where the existing half-diamond interchange ramps would be replaced with improved local connectivity to the Lincoln Avenue interchange. Implementation of the project is proposed in phases over a 20-year period and the total costs of Alternatives 1 and 2 are estimated at $990 million to $1.0 billion and $1.35 billion to $1.43 billion, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the movement of vehicles and goods within the corridor to more effectively serve existing and future travel demand between and within Riverside and Orange Counties. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed improvements would permanently convert 17 to 20 acres of farmland and grazing land, convert two to three acres of federal wetlands, remove two to three acres of habitat for the California gnatcatcher, impact 27 to 35 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat, and increase impervious surface area by 120 to 171 acres. New right-of-way would require acquisition of 93 to 161 residences and 110 to 275 businesses. Noise levels in 2035 would exceed 75 decibels at an additional 34 to 41 locations. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110158, Volume I--1,459 pages and maps, Volume II (Appendices)--503 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 20 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876249142?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - California Department of Transportation, San Bernardino, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 19 of 51] T2 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876249139; 14919-8_0019 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements on State Route 91 (SR-91) and Interstate 15 (I-15) in Riverside and Orange counties, California are proposed. SR-91 is the only major highway that provides the home-to-work connection for Riverside and San Bernardino County residents working in Orange and Los Angeles Counties. It is currently used by more than 280,000 vehicles per day at the Orange/Riverside County line and travel speeds are well below 30 miles per hour (mph) during peak travel periods. Traffic volumes are expected to increase by 50 percent by 2035. The SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project (CIP) would widen the existing highway from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange in the cities of Anaheim and Yorba Linda in Orange County to Pierce Street in the City of Riverside in Riverside County and improve I-15 in Riverside County between the I-15/Cajalco Road interchange and the I-15/Hidden Valley Parkway interchange in the City of Corona. Currently, SR-91 has four general purpose lanes in each direction, with those lanes varying in width from 11 to 12 feet from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange to the SR-91/ I-15 interchange, and three 12-foot-wide lanes in each direction from the SR-91/I-15 interchange to Pierce Street. In addition, there are two tolled express lanes and one high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction. The tolled express lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin in Orange County west of the SR-91/SR-55 interchange and end at the Orange/Riverside County line. The two HOV lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin where the tolled express lanes end just east of the Orange/Riverside County line and extend to Mary Street in the City of Riverside. This draft EIS evaluates two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. Both build alternatives would add one general purpose lane in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15 and would include improvements to I-15 between the Cajalco Road interchange and the Hidden Valley Parkway interchange. The two build alternatives would provide auxiliary lanes or collector-distributor roads at interchanges and would modify the existing interchange geometrics to improve traffic operations. The build alternatives would also upgrade existing SR-91 to standard shoulder, lane, and buffer widths where those upgrades can be accommodated. Under Alternative 1, the existing HOV facilities and tolled express lanes would be maintained in their current configurations. Alternative 2, which is the locally preferred alternative, would provide two tolled express lanes in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15. The existing HOV and express lanes would be incorporated into these two tolled express lanes. East of I-15, the HOV lanes in Alternative 1 and the tolled express lanes in Alternative 2 would transition to the existing HOV and general purpose lanes at Mary Street. Alternative 1 would provide one median HOV lane in each direction on I-15 between SR-91 and Ontario Avenue. Alternative 2 would provide one median tolled express lane in each direction on I-15 between Hidden Valley Parkway and Cajalco Road. Local access at the existing interchanges is expected to be maintained except at West Grand Boulevard, where the existing half-diamond interchange ramps would be replaced with improved local connectivity to the Lincoln Avenue interchange. Implementation of the project is proposed in phases over a 20-year period and the total costs of Alternatives 1 and 2 are estimated at $990 million to $1.0 billion and $1.35 billion to $1.43 billion, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the movement of vehicles and goods within the corridor to more effectively serve existing and future travel demand between and within Riverside and Orange Counties. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed improvements would permanently convert 17 to 20 acres of farmland and grazing land, convert two to three acres of federal wetlands, remove two to three acres of habitat for the California gnatcatcher, impact 27 to 35 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat, and increase impervious surface area by 120 to 171 acres. New right-of-way would require acquisition of 93 to 161 residences and 110 to 275 businesses. Noise levels in 2035 would exceed 75 decibels at an additional 34 to 41 locations. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110158, Volume I--1,459 pages and maps, Volume II (Appendices)--503 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 19 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876249139?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - California Department of Transportation, San Bernardino, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 18 of 51] T2 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876249135; 14919-8_0018 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements on State Route 91 (SR-91) and Interstate 15 (I-15) in Riverside and Orange counties, California are proposed. SR-91 is the only major highway that provides the home-to-work connection for Riverside and San Bernardino County residents working in Orange and Los Angeles Counties. It is currently used by more than 280,000 vehicles per day at the Orange/Riverside County line and travel speeds are well below 30 miles per hour (mph) during peak travel periods. Traffic volumes are expected to increase by 50 percent by 2035. The SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project (CIP) would widen the existing highway from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange in the cities of Anaheim and Yorba Linda in Orange County to Pierce Street in the City of Riverside in Riverside County and improve I-15 in Riverside County between the I-15/Cajalco Road interchange and the I-15/Hidden Valley Parkway interchange in the City of Corona. Currently, SR-91 has four general purpose lanes in each direction, with those lanes varying in width from 11 to 12 feet from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange to the SR-91/ I-15 interchange, and three 12-foot-wide lanes in each direction from the SR-91/I-15 interchange to Pierce Street. In addition, there are two tolled express lanes and one high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction. The tolled express lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin in Orange County west of the SR-91/SR-55 interchange and end at the Orange/Riverside County line. The two HOV lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin where the tolled express lanes end just east of the Orange/Riverside County line and extend to Mary Street in the City of Riverside. This draft EIS evaluates two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. Both build alternatives would add one general purpose lane in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15 and would include improvements to I-15 between the Cajalco Road interchange and the Hidden Valley Parkway interchange. The two build alternatives would provide auxiliary lanes or collector-distributor roads at interchanges and would modify the existing interchange geometrics to improve traffic operations. The build alternatives would also upgrade existing SR-91 to standard shoulder, lane, and buffer widths where those upgrades can be accommodated. Under Alternative 1, the existing HOV facilities and tolled express lanes would be maintained in their current configurations. Alternative 2, which is the locally preferred alternative, would provide two tolled express lanes in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15. The existing HOV and express lanes would be incorporated into these two tolled express lanes. East of I-15, the HOV lanes in Alternative 1 and the tolled express lanes in Alternative 2 would transition to the existing HOV and general purpose lanes at Mary Street. Alternative 1 would provide one median HOV lane in each direction on I-15 between SR-91 and Ontario Avenue. Alternative 2 would provide one median tolled express lane in each direction on I-15 between Hidden Valley Parkway and Cajalco Road. Local access at the existing interchanges is expected to be maintained except at West Grand Boulevard, where the existing half-diamond interchange ramps would be replaced with improved local connectivity to the Lincoln Avenue interchange. Implementation of the project is proposed in phases over a 20-year period and the total costs of Alternatives 1 and 2 are estimated at $990 million to $1.0 billion and $1.35 billion to $1.43 billion, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the movement of vehicles and goods within the corridor to more effectively serve existing and future travel demand between and within Riverside and Orange Counties. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed improvements would permanently convert 17 to 20 acres of farmland and grazing land, convert two to three acres of federal wetlands, remove two to three acres of habitat for the California gnatcatcher, impact 27 to 35 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat, and increase impervious surface area by 120 to 171 acres. New right-of-way would require acquisition of 93 to 161 residences and 110 to 275 businesses. Noise levels in 2035 would exceed 75 decibels at an additional 34 to 41 locations. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110158, Volume I--1,459 pages and maps, Volume II (Appendices)--503 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 18 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876249135?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - California Department of Transportation, San Bernardino, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 13 of 51] T2 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876249132; 14919-8_0013 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements on State Route 91 (SR-91) and Interstate 15 (I-15) in Riverside and Orange counties, California are proposed. SR-91 is the only major highway that provides the home-to-work connection for Riverside and San Bernardino County residents working in Orange and Los Angeles Counties. It is currently used by more than 280,000 vehicles per day at the Orange/Riverside County line and travel speeds are well below 30 miles per hour (mph) during peak travel periods. Traffic volumes are expected to increase by 50 percent by 2035. The SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project (CIP) would widen the existing highway from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange in the cities of Anaheim and Yorba Linda in Orange County to Pierce Street in the City of Riverside in Riverside County and improve I-15 in Riverside County between the I-15/Cajalco Road interchange and the I-15/Hidden Valley Parkway interchange in the City of Corona. Currently, SR-91 has four general purpose lanes in each direction, with those lanes varying in width from 11 to 12 feet from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange to the SR-91/ I-15 interchange, and three 12-foot-wide lanes in each direction from the SR-91/I-15 interchange to Pierce Street. In addition, there are two tolled express lanes and one high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction. The tolled express lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin in Orange County west of the SR-91/SR-55 interchange and end at the Orange/Riverside County line. The two HOV lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin where the tolled express lanes end just east of the Orange/Riverside County line and extend to Mary Street in the City of Riverside. This draft EIS evaluates two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. Both build alternatives would add one general purpose lane in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15 and would include improvements to I-15 between the Cajalco Road interchange and the Hidden Valley Parkway interchange. The two build alternatives would provide auxiliary lanes or collector-distributor roads at interchanges and would modify the existing interchange geometrics to improve traffic operations. The build alternatives would also upgrade existing SR-91 to standard shoulder, lane, and buffer widths where those upgrades can be accommodated. Under Alternative 1, the existing HOV facilities and tolled express lanes would be maintained in their current configurations. Alternative 2, which is the locally preferred alternative, would provide two tolled express lanes in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15. The existing HOV and express lanes would be incorporated into these two tolled express lanes. East of I-15, the HOV lanes in Alternative 1 and the tolled express lanes in Alternative 2 would transition to the existing HOV and general purpose lanes at Mary Street. Alternative 1 would provide one median HOV lane in each direction on I-15 between SR-91 and Ontario Avenue. Alternative 2 would provide one median tolled express lane in each direction on I-15 between Hidden Valley Parkway and Cajalco Road. Local access at the existing interchanges is expected to be maintained except at West Grand Boulevard, where the existing half-diamond interchange ramps would be replaced with improved local connectivity to the Lincoln Avenue interchange. Implementation of the project is proposed in phases over a 20-year period and the total costs of Alternatives 1 and 2 are estimated at $990 million to $1.0 billion and $1.35 billion to $1.43 billion, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the movement of vehicles and goods within the corridor to more effectively serve existing and future travel demand between and within Riverside and Orange Counties. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed improvements would permanently convert 17 to 20 acres of farmland and grazing land, convert two to three acres of federal wetlands, remove two to three acres of habitat for the California gnatcatcher, impact 27 to 35 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat, and increase impervious surface area by 120 to 171 acres. New right-of-way would require acquisition of 93 to 161 residences and 110 to 275 businesses. Noise levels in 2035 would exceed 75 decibels at an additional 34 to 41 locations. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110158, Volume I--1,459 pages and maps, Volume II (Appendices)--503 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876249132?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - California Department of Transportation, San Bernardino, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 12 of 51] T2 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876249131; 14919-8_0012 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements on State Route 91 (SR-91) and Interstate 15 (I-15) in Riverside and Orange counties, California are proposed. SR-91 is the only major highway that provides the home-to-work connection for Riverside and San Bernardino County residents working in Orange and Los Angeles Counties. It is currently used by more than 280,000 vehicles per day at the Orange/Riverside County line and travel speeds are well below 30 miles per hour (mph) during peak travel periods. Traffic volumes are expected to increase by 50 percent by 2035. The SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project (CIP) would widen the existing highway from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange in the cities of Anaheim and Yorba Linda in Orange County to Pierce Street in the City of Riverside in Riverside County and improve I-15 in Riverside County between the I-15/Cajalco Road interchange and the I-15/Hidden Valley Parkway interchange in the City of Corona. Currently, SR-91 has four general purpose lanes in each direction, with those lanes varying in width from 11 to 12 feet from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange to the SR-91/ I-15 interchange, and three 12-foot-wide lanes in each direction from the SR-91/I-15 interchange to Pierce Street. In addition, there are two tolled express lanes and one high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction. The tolled express lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin in Orange County west of the SR-91/SR-55 interchange and end at the Orange/Riverside County line. The two HOV lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin where the tolled express lanes end just east of the Orange/Riverside County line and extend to Mary Street in the City of Riverside. This draft EIS evaluates two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. Both build alternatives would add one general purpose lane in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15 and would include improvements to I-15 between the Cajalco Road interchange and the Hidden Valley Parkway interchange. The two build alternatives would provide auxiliary lanes or collector-distributor roads at interchanges and would modify the existing interchange geometrics to improve traffic operations. The build alternatives would also upgrade existing SR-91 to standard shoulder, lane, and buffer widths where those upgrades can be accommodated. Under Alternative 1, the existing HOV facilities and tolled express lanes would be maintained in their current configurations. Alternative 2, which is the locally preferred alternative, would provide two tolled express lanes in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15. The existing HOV and express lanes would be incorporated into these two tolled express lanes. East of I-15, the HOV lanes in Alternative 1 and the tolled express lanes in Alternative 2 would transition to the existing HOV and general purpose lanes at Mary Street. Alternative 1 would provide one median HOV lane in each direction on I-15 between SR-91 and Ontario Avenue. Alternative 2 would provide one median tolled express lane in each direction on I-15 between Hidden Valley Parkway and Cajalco Road. Local access at the existing interchanges is expected to be maintained except at West Grand Boulevard, where the existing half-diamond interchange ramps would be replaced with improved local connectivity to the Lincoln Avenue interchange. Implementation of the project is proposed in phases over a 20-year period and the total costs of Alternatives 1 and 2 are estimated at $990 million to $1.0 billion and $1.35 billion to $1.43 billion, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the movement of vehicles and goods within the corridor to more effectively serve existing and future travel demand between and within Riverside and Orange Counties. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed improvements would permanently convert 17 to 20 acres of farmland and grazing land, convert two to three acres of federal wetlands, remove two to three acres of habitat for the California gnatcatcher, impact 27 to 35 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat, and increase impervious surface area by 120 to 171 acres. New right-of-way would require acquisition of 93 to 161 residences and 110 to 275 businesses. Noise levels in 2035 would exceed 75 decibels at an additional 34 to 41 locations. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110158, Volume I--1,459 pages and maps, Volume II (Appendices)--503 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876249131?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - California Department of Transportation, San Bernardino, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 11 of 51] T2 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876249129; 14919-8_0011 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements on State Route 91 (SR-91) and Interstate 15 (I-15) in Riverside and Orange counties, California are proposed. SR-91 is the only major highway that provides the home-to-work connection for Riverside and San Bernardino County residents working in Orange and Los Angeles Counties. It is currently used by more than 280,000 vehicles per day at the Orange/Riverside County line and travel speeds are well below 30 miles per hour (mph) during peak travel periods. Traffic volumes are expected to increase by 50 percent by 2035. The SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project (CIP) would widen the existing highway from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange in the cities of Anaheim and Yorba Linda in Orange County to Pierce Street in the City of Riverside in Riverside County and improve I-15 in Riverside County between the I-15/Cajalco Road interchange and the I-15/Hidden Valley Parkway interchange in the City of Corona. Currently, SR-91 has four general purpose lanes in each direction, with those lanes varying in width from 11 to 12 feet from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange to the SR-91/ I-15 interchange, and three 12-foot-wide lanes in each direction from the SR-91/I-15 interchange to Pierce Street. In addition, there are two tolled express lanes and one high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction. The tolled express lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin in Orange County west of the SR-91/SR-55 interchange and end at the Orange/Riverside County line. The two HOV lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin where the tolled express lanes end just east of the Orange/Riverside County line and extend to Mary Street in the City of Riverside. This draft EIS evaluates two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. Both build alternatives would add one general purpose lane in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15 and would include improvements to I-15 between the Cajalco Road interchange and the Hidden Valley Parkway interchange. The two build alternatives would provide auxiliary lanes or collector-distributor roads at interchanges and would modify the existing interchange geometrics to improve traffic operations. The build alternatives would also upgrade existing SR-91 to standard shoulder, lane, and buffer widths where those upgrades can be accommodated. Under Alternative 1, the existing HOV facilities and tolled express lanes would be maintained in their current configurations. Alternative 2, which is the locally preferred alternative, would provide two tolled express lanes in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15. The existing HOV and express lanes would be incorporated into these two tolled express lanes. East of I-15, the HOV lanes in Alternative 1 and the tolled express lanes in Alternative 2 would transition to the existing HOV and general purpose lanes at Mary Street. Alternative 1 would provide one median HOV lane in each direction on I-15 between SR-91 and Ontario Avenue. Alternative 2 would provide one median tolled express lane in each direction on I-15 between Hidden Valley Parkway and Cajalco Road. Local access at the existing interchanges is expected to be maintained except at West Grand Boulevard, where the existing half-diamond interchange ramps would be replaced with improved local connectivity to the Lincoln Avenue interchange. Implementation of the project is proposed in phases over a 20-year period and the total costs of Alternatives 1 and 2 are estimated at $990 million to $1.0 billion and $1.35 billion to $1.43 billion, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the movement of vehicles and goods within the corridor to more effectively serve existing and future travel demand between and within Riverside and Orange Counties. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed improvements would permanently convert 17 to 20 acres of farmland and grazing land, convert two to three acres of federal wetlands, remove two to three acres of habitat for the California gnatcatcher, impact 27 to 35 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat, and increase impervious surface area by 120 to 171 acres. New right-of-way would require acquisition of 93 to 161 residences and 110 to 275 businesses. Noise levels in 2035 would exceed 75 decibels at an additional 34 to 41 locations. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110158, Volume I--1,459 pages and maps, Volume II (Appendices)--503 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876249129?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - California Department of Transportation, San Bernardino, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 10 of 51] T2 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876249125; 14919-8_0010 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements on State Route 91 (SR-91) and Interstate 15 (I-15) in Riverside and Orange counties, California are proposed. SR-91 is the only major highway that provides the home-to-work connection for Riverside and San Bernardino County residents working in Orange and Los Angeles Counties. It is currently used by more than 280,000 vehicles per day at the Orange/Riverside County line and travel speeds are well below 30 miles per hour (mph) during peak travel periods. Traffic volumes are expected to increase by 50 percent by 2035. The SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project (CIP) would widen the existing highway from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange in the cities of Anaheim and Yorba Linda in Orange County to Pierce Street in the City of Riverside in Riverside County and improve I-15 in Riverside County between the I-15/Cajalco Road interchange and the I-15/Hidden Valley Parkway interchange in the City of Corona. Currently, SR-91 has four general purpose lanes in each direction, with those lanes varying in width from 11 to 12 feet from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange to the SR-91/ I-15 interchange, and three 12-foot-wide lanes in each direction from the SR-91/I-15 interchange to Pierce Street. In addition, there are two tolled express lanes and one high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction. The tolled express lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin in Orange County west of the SR-91/SR-55 interchange and end at the Orange/Riverside County line. The two HOV lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin where the tolled express lanes end just east of the Orange/Riverside County line and extend to Mary Street in the City of Riverside. This draft EIS evaluates two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. Both build alternatives would add one general purpose lane in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15 and would include improvements to I-15 between the Cajalco Road interchange and the Hidden Valley Parkway interchange. The two build alternatives would provide auxiliary lanes or collector-distributor roads at interchanges and would modify the existing interchange geometrics to improve traffic operations. The build alternatives would also upgrade existing SR-91 to standard shoulder, lane, and buffer widths where those upgrades can be accommodated. Under Alternative 1, the existing HOV facilities and tolled express lanes would be maintained in their current configurations. Alternative 2, which is the locally preferred alternative, would provide two tolled express lanes in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15. The existing HOV and express lanes would be incorporated into these two tolled express lanes. East of I-15, the HOV lanes in Alternative 1 and the tolled express lanes in Alternative 2 would transition to the existing HOV and general purpose lanes at Mary Street. Alternative 1 would provide one median HOV lane in each direction on I-15 between SR-91 and Ontario Avenue. Alternative 2 would provide one median tolled express lane in each direction on I-15 between Hidden Valley Parkway and Cajalco Road. Local access at the existing interchanges is expected to be maintained except at West Grand Boulevard, where the existing half-diamond interchange ramps would be replaced with improved local connectivity to the Lincoln Avenue interchange. Implementation of the project is proposed in phases over a 20-year period and the total costs of Alternatives 1 and 2 are estimated at $990 million to $1.0 billion and $1.35 billion to $1.43 billion, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the movement of vehicles and goods within the corridor to more effectively serve existing and future travel demand between and within Riverside and Orange Counties. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed improvements would permanently convert 17 to 20 acres of farmland and grazing land, convert two to three acres of federal wetlands, remove two to three acres of habitat for the California gnatcatcher, impact 27 to 35 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat, and increase impervious surface area by 120 to 171 acres. New right-of-way would require acquisition of 93 to 161 residences and 110 to 275 businesses. Noise levels in 2035 would exceed 75 decibels at an additional 34 to 41 locations. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110158, Volume I--1,459 pages and maps, Volume II (Appendices)--503 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876249125?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - California Department of Transportation, San Bernardino, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 30 of 51] T2 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876248992; 14919-8_0030 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements on State Route 91 (SR-91) and Interstate 15 (I-15) in Riverside and Orange counties, California are proposed. SR-91 is the only major highway that provides the home-to-work connection for Riverside and San Bernardino County residents working in Orange and Los Angeles Counties. It is currently used by more than 280,000 vehicles per day at the Orange/Riverside County line and travel speeds are well below 30 miles per hour (mph) during peak travel periods. Traffic volumes are expected to increase by 50 percent by 2035. The SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project (CIP) would widen the existing highway from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange in the cities of Anaheim and Yorba Linda in Orange County to Pierce Street in the City of Riverside in Riverside County and improve I-15 in Riverside County between the I-15/Cajalco Road interchange and the I-15/Hidden Valley Parkway interchange in the City of Corona. Currently, SR-91 has four general purpose lanes in each direction, with those lanes varying in width from 11 to 12 feet from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange to the SR-91/ I-15 interchange, and three 12-foot-wide lanes in each direction from the SR-91/I-15 interchange to Pierce Street. In addition, there are two tolled express lanes and one high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction. The tolled express lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin in Orange County west of the SR-91/SR-55 interchange and end at the Orange/Riverside County line. The two HOV lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin where the tolled express lanes end just east of the Orange/Riverside County line and extend to Mary Street in the City of Riverside. This draft EIS evaluates two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. Both build alternatives would add one general purpose lane in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15 and would include improvements to I-15 between the Cajalco Road interchange and the Hidden Valley Parkway interchange. The two build alternatives would provide auxiliary lanes or collector-distributor roads at interchanges and would modify the existing interchange geometrics to improve traffic operations. The build alternatives would also upgrade existing SR-91 to standard shoulder, lane, and buffer widths where those upgrades can be accommodated. Under Alternative 1, the existing HOV facilities and tolled express lanes would be maintained in their current configurations. Alternative 2, which is the locally preferred alternative, would provide two tolled express lanes in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15. The existing HOV and express lanes would be incorporated into these two tolled express lanes. East of I-15, the HOV lanes in Alternative 1 and the tolled express lanes in Alternative 2 would transition to the existing HOV and general purpose lanes at Mary Street. Alternative 1 would provide one median HOV lane in each direction on I-15 between SR-91 and Ontario Avenue. Alternative 2 would provide one median tolled express lane in each direction on I-15 between Hidden Valley Parkway and Cajalco Road. Local access at the existing interchanges is expected to be maintained except at West Grand Boulevard, where the existing half-diamond interchange ramps would be replaced with improved local connectivity to the Lincoln Avenue interchange. Implementation of the project is proposed in phases over a 20-year period and the total costs of Alternatives 1 and 2 are estimated at $990 million to $1.0 billion and $1.35 billion to $1.43 billion, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the movement of vehicles and goods within the corridor to more effectively serve existing and future travel demand between and within Riverside and Orange Counties. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed improvements would permanently convert 17 to 20 acres of farmland and grazing land, convert two to three acres of federal wetlands, remove two to three acres of habitat for the California gnatcatcher, impact 27 to 35 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat, and increase impervious surface area by 120 to 171 acres. New right-of-way would require acquisition of 93 to 161 residences and 110 to 275 businesses. Noise levels in 2035 would exceed 75 decibels at an additional 34 to 41 locations. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110158, Volume I--1,459 pages and maps, Volume II (Appendices)--503 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 30 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876248992?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - California Department of Transportation, San Bernardino, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 29 of 51] T2 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876248985; 14919-8_0029 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements on State Route 91 (SR-91) and Interstate 15 (I-15) in Riverside and Orange counties, California are proposed. SR-91 is the only major highway that provides the home-to-work connection for Riverside and San Bernardino County residents working in Orange and Los Angeles Counties. It is currently used by more than 280,000 vehicles per day at the Orange/Riverside County line and travel speeds are well below 30 miles per hour (mph) during peak travel periods. Traffic volumes are expected to increase by 50 percent by 2035. The SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project (CIP) would widen the existing highway from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange in the cities of Anaheim and Yorba Linda in Orange County to Pierce Street in the City of Riverside in Riverside County and improve I-15 in Riverside County between the I-15/Cajalco Road interchange and the I-15/Hidden Valley Parkway interchange in the City of Corona. Currently, SR-91 has four general purpose lanes in each direction, with those lanes varying in width from 11 to 12 feet from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange to the SR-91/ I-15 interchange, and three 12-foot-wide lanes in each direction from the SR-91/I-15 interchange to Pierce Street. In addition, there are two tolled express lanes and one high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction. The tolled express lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin in Orange County west of the SR-91/SR-55 interchange and end at the Orange/Riverside County line. The two HOV lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin where the tolled express lanes end just east of the Orange/Riverside County line and extend to Mary Street in the City of Riverside. This draft EIS evaluates two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. Both build alternatives would add one general purpose lane in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15 and would include improvements to I-15 between the Cajalco Road interchange and the Hidden Valley Parkway interchange. The two build alternatives would provide auxiliary lanes or collector-distributor roads at interchanges and would modify the existing interchange geometrics to improve traffic operations. The build alternatives would also upgrade existing SR-91 to standard shoulder, lane, and buffer widths where those upgrades can be accommodated. Under Alternative 1, the existing HOV facilities and tolled express lanes would be maintained in their current configurations. Alternative 2, which is the locally preferred alternative, would provide two tolled express lanes in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15. The existing HOV and express lanes would be incorporated into these two tolled express lanes. East of I-15, the HOV lanes in Alternative 1 and the tolled express lanes in Alternative 2 would transition to the existing HOV and general purpose lanes at Mary Street. Alternative 1 would provide one median HOV lane in each direction on I-15 between SR-91 and Ontario Avenue. Alternative 2 would provide one median tolled express lane in each direction on I-15 between Hidden Valley Parkway and Cajalco Road. Local access at the existing interchanges is expected to be maintained except at West Grand Boulevard, where the existing half-diamond interchange ramps would be replaced with improved local connectivity to the Lincoln Avenue interchange. Implementation of the project is proposed in phases over a 20-year period and the total costs of Alternatives 1 and 2 are estimated at $990 million to $1.0 billion and $1.35 billion to $1.43 billion, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the movement of vehicles and goods within the corridor to more effectively serve existing and future travel demand between and within Riverside and Orange Counties. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed improvements would permanently convert 17 to 20 acres of farmland and grazing land, convert two to three acres of federal wetlands, remove two to three acres of habitat for the California gnatcatcher, impact 27 to 35 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat, and increase impervious surface area by 120 to 171 acres. New right-of-way would require acquisition of 93 to 161 residences and 110 to 275 businesses. Noise levels in 2035 would exceed 75 decibels at an additional 34 to 41 locations. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110158, Volume I--1,459 pages and maps, Volume II (Appendices)--503 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 29 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876248985?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - California Department of Transportation, San Bernardino, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 28 of 51] T2 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876248976; 14919-8_0028 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements on State Route 91 (SR-91) and Interstate 15 (I-15) in Riverside and Orange counties, California are proposed. SR-91 is the only major highway that provides the home-to-work connection for Riverside and San Bernardino County residents working in Orange and Los Angeles Counties. It is currently used by more than 280,000 vehicles per day at the Orange/Riverside County line and travel speeds are well below 30 miles per hour (mph) during peak travel periods. Traffic volumes are expected to increase by 50 percent by 2035. The SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project (CIP) would widen the existing highway from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange in the cities of Anaheim and Yorba Linda in Orange County to Pierce Street in the City of Riverside in Riverside County and improve I-15 in Riverside County between the I-15/Cajalco Road interchange and the I-15/Hidden Valley Parkway interchange in the City of Corona. Currently, SR-91 has four general purpose lanes in each direction, with those lanes varying in width from 11 to 12 feet from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange to the SR-91/ I-15 interchange, and three 12-foot-wide lanes in each direction from the SR-91/I-15 interchange to Pierce Street. In addition, there are two tolled express lanes and one high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction. The tolled express lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin in Orange County west of the SR-91/SR-55 interchange and end at the Orange/Riverside County line. The two HOV lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin where the tolled express lanes end just east of the Orange/Riverside County line and extend to Mary Street in the City of Riverside. This draft EIS evaluates two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. Both build alternatives would add one general purpose lane in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15 and would include improvements to I-15 between the Cajalco Road interchange and the Hidden Valley Parkway interchange. The two build alternatives would provide auxiliary lanes or collector-distributor roads at interchanges and would modify the existing interchange geometrics to improve traffic operations. The build alternatives would also upgrade existing SR-91 to standard shoulder, lane, and buffer widths where those upgrades can be accommodated. Under Alternative 1, the existing HOV facilities and tolled express lanes would be maintained in their current configurations. Alternative 2, which is the locally preferred alternative, would provide two tolled express lanes in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15. The existing HOV and express lanes would be incorporated into these two tolled express lanes. East of I-15, the HOV lanes in Alternative 1 and the tolled express lanes in Alternative 2 would transition to the existing HOV and general purpose lanes at Mary Street. Alternative 1 would provide one median HOV lane in each direction on I-15 between SR-91 and Ontario Avenue. Alternative 2 would provide one median tolled express lane in each direction on I-15 between Hidden Valley Parkway and Cajalco Road. Local access at the existing interchanges is expected to be maintained except at West Grand Boulevard, where the existing half-diamond interchange ramps would be replaced with improved local connectivity to the Lincoln Avenue interchange. Implementation of the project is proposed in phases over a 20-year period and the total costs of Alternatives 1 and 2 are estimated at $990 million to $1.0 billion and $1.35 billion to $1.43 billion, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the movement of vehicles and goods within the corridor to more effectively serve existing and future travel demand between and within Riverside and Orange Counties. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed improvements would permanently convert 17 to 20 acres of farmland and grazing land, convert two to three acres of federal wetlands, remove two to three acres of habitat for the California gnatcatcher, impact 27 to 35 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat, and increase impervious surface area by 120 to 171 acres. New right-of-way would require acquisition of 93 to 161 residences and 110 to 275 businesses. Noise levels in 2035 would exceed 75 decibels at an additional 34 to 41 locations. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110158, Volume I--1,459 pages and maps, Volume II (Appendices)--503 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 28 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876248976?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - California Department of Transportation, San Bernardino, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 17 of 19] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876246538; 14921-0_0017 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,510 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the city of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. The proposed project would involve construction of 10,210 residential units at various densities on 1,477 acres; 362.8 acres designated for commercial and industrial use, including a regional shopping center; public/quasi-public uses; elementary, middle, and high schools on 179.3 acres; 121.7 acres of community and neighborhood parks; stormwater detention basins; 1,053.1 acres of open-space areas and open-space preserves; and major roads with landscaping. The project would require a water supply of not more than 5,600 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. The acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River is proposed in order to provide a reliable water supply for the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 10 additional water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. Under the Resource Impact Minimization Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed thus allowing for a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but the total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide residential housing and expand Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos, rocks, and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. 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 10-0335D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110160, Final EIS--204 pages, Appendices--733 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 17 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Land Use KW - Municipal Services KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment 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/876246538?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+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, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 16 of 19] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876246535; 14921-0_0016 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,510 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the city of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. The proposed project would involve construction of 10,210 residential units at various densities on 1,477 acres; 362.8 acres designated for commercial and industrial use, including a regional shopping center; public/quasi-public uses; elementary, middle, and high schools on 179.3 acres; 121.7 acres of community and neighborhood parks; stormwater detention basins; 1,053.1 acres of open-space areas and open-space preserves; and major roads with landscaping. The project would require a water supply of not more than 5,600 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. The acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River is proposed in order to provide a reliable water supply for the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 10 additional water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. Under the Resource Impact Minimization Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed thus allowing for a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but the total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide residential housing and expand Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos, rocks, and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. 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 10-0335D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110160, Final EIS--204 pages, Appendices--733 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 16 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Land Use KW - Municipal Services KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment 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/876246535?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+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, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 15 of 19] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876246531; 14921-0_0015 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,510 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the city of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. The proposed project would involve construction of 10,210 residential units at various densities on 1,477 acres; 362.8 acres designated for commercial and industrial use, including a regional shopping center; public/quasi-public uses; elementary, middle, and high schools on 179.3 acres; 121.7 acres of community and neighborhood parks; stormwater detention basins; 1,053.1 acres of open-space areas and open-space preserves; and major roads with landscaping. The project would require a water supply of not more than 5,600 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. The acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River is proposed in order to provide a reliable water supply for the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 10 additional water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. Under the Resource Impact Minimization Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed thus allowing for a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but the total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide residential housing and expand Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos, rocks, and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. 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 10-0335D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110160, Final EIS--204 pages, Appendices--733 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Land Use KW - Municipal Services KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment 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/876246531?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+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, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 33 of 51] T2 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876246525; 14919-8_0033 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements on State Route 91 (SR-91) and Interstate 15 (I-15) in Riverside and Orange counties, California are proposed. SR-91 is the only major highway that provides the home-to-work connection for Riverside and San Bernardino County residents working in Orange and Los Angeles Counties. It is currently used by more than 280,000 vehicles per day at the Orange/Riverside County line and travel speeds are well below 30 miles per hour (mph) during peak travel periods. Traffic volumes are expected to increase by 50 percent by 2035. The SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project (CIP) would widen the existing highway from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange in the cities of Anaheim and Yorba Linda in Orange County to Pierce Street in the City of Riverside in Riverside County and improve I-15 in Riverside County between the I-15/Cajalco Road interchange and the I-15/Hidden Valley Parkway interchange in the City of Corona. Currently, SR-91 has four general purpose lanes in each direction, with those lanes varying in width from 11 to 12 feet from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange to the SR-91/ I-15 interchange, and three 12-foot-wide lanes in each direction from the SR-91/I-15 interchange to Pierce Street. In addition, there are two tolled express lanes and one high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction. The tolled express lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin in Orange County west of the SR-91/SR-55 interchange and end at the Orange/Riverside County line. The two HOV lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin where the tolled express lanes end just east of the Orange/Riverside County line and extend to Mary Street in the City of Riverside. This draft EIS evaluates two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. Both build alternatives would add one general purpose lane in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15 and would include improvements to I-15 between the Cajalco Road interchange and the Hidden Valley Parkway interchange. The two build alternatives would provide auxiliary lanes or collector-distributor roads at interchanges and would modify the existing interchange geometrics to improve traffic operations. The build alternatives would also upgrade existing SR-91 to standard shoulder, lane, and buffer widths where those upgrades can be accommodated. Under Alternative 1, the existing HOV facilities and tolled express lanes would be maintained in their current configurations. Alternative 2, which is the locally preferred alternative, would provide two tolled express lanes in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15. The existing HOV and express lanes would be incorporated into these two tolled express lanes. East of I-15, the HOV lanes in Alternative 1 and the tolled express lanes in Alternative 2 would transition to the existing HOV and general purpose lanes at Mary Street. Alternative 1 would provide one median HOV lane in each direction on I-15 between SR-91 and Ontario Avenue. Alternative 2 would provide one median tolled express lane in each direction on I-15 between Hidden Valley Parkway and Cajalco Road. Local access at the existing interchanges is expected to be maintained except at West Grand Boulevard, where the existing half-diamond interchange ramps would be replaced with improved local connectivity to the Lincoln Avenue interchange. Implementation of the project is proposed in phases over a 20-year period and the total costs of Alternatives 1 and 2 are estimated at $990 million to $1.0 billion and $1.35 billion to $1.43 billion, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the movement of vehicles and goods within the corridor to more effectively serve existing and future travel demand between and within Riverside and Orange Counties. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed improvements would permanently convert 17 to 20 acres of farmland and grazing land, convert two to three acres of federal wetlands, remove two to three acres of habitat for the California gnatcatcher, impact 27 to 35 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat, and increase impervious surface area by 120 to 171 acres. New right-of-way would require acquisition of 93 to 161 residences and 110 to 275 businesses. Noise levels in 2035 would exceed 75 decibels at an additional 34 to 41 locations. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110158, Volume I--1,459 pages and maps, Volume II (Appendices)--503 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 33 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876246525?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - California Department of Transportation, San Bernardino, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 32 of 51] T2 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876246516; 14919-8_0032 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements on State Route 91 (SR-91) and Interstate 15 (I-15) in Riverside and Orange counties, California are proposed. SR-91 is the only major highway that provides the home-to-work connection for Riverside and San Bernardino County residents working in Orange and Los Angeles Counties. It is currently used by more than 280,000 vehicles per day at the Orange/Riverside County line and travel speeds are well below 30 miles per hour (mph) during peak travel periods. Traffic volumes are expected to increase by 50 percent by 2035. The SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project (CIP) would widen the existing highway from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange in the cities of Anaheim and Yorba Linda in Orange County to Pierce Street in the City of Riverside in Riverside County and improve I-15 in Riverside County between the I-15/Cajalco Road interchange and the I-15/Hidden Valley Parkway interchange in the City of Corona. Currently, SR-91 has four general purpose lanes in each direction, with those lanes varying in width from 11 to 12 feet from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange to the SR-91/ I-15 interchange, and three 12-foot-wide lanes in each direction from the SR-91/I-15 interchange to Pierce Street. In addition, there are two tolled express lanes and one high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction. The tolled express lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin in Orange County west of the SR-91/SR-55 interchange and end at the Orange/Riverside County line. The two HOV lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin where the tolled express lanes end just east of the Orange/Riverside County line and extend to Mary Street in the City of Riverside. This draft EIS evaluates two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. Both build alternatives would add one general purpose lane in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15 and would include improvements to I-15 between the Cajalco Road interchange and the Hidden Valley Parkway interchange. The two build alternatives would provide auxiliary lanes or collector-distributor roads at interchanges and would modify the existing interchange geometrics to improve traffic operations. The build alternatives would also upgrade existing SR-91 to standard shoulder, lane, and buffer widths where those upgrades can be accommodated. Under Alternative 1, the existing HOV facilities and tolled express lanes would be maintained in their current configurations. Alternative 2, which is the locally preferred alternative, would provide two tolled express lanes in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15. The existing HOV and express lanes would be incorporated into these two tolled express lanes. East of I-15, the HOV lanes in Alternative 1 and the tolled express lanes in Alternative 2 would transition to the existing HOV and general purpose lanes at Mary Street. Alternative 1 would provide one median HOV lane in each direction on I-15 between SR-91 and Ontario Avenue. Alternative 2 would provide one median tolled express lane in each direction on I-15 between Hidden Valley Parkway and Cajalco Road. Local access at the existing interchanges is expected to be maintained except at West Grand Boulevard, where the existing half-diamond interchange ramps would be replaced with improved local connectivity to the Lincoln Avenue interchange. Implementation of the project is proposed in phases over a 20-year period and the total costs of Alternatives 1 and 2 are estimated at $990 million to $1.0 billion and $1.35 billion to $1.43 billion, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the movement of vehicles and goods within the corridor to more effectively serve existing and future travel demand between and within Riverside and Orange Counties. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed improvements would permanently convert 17 to 20 acres of farmland and grazing land, convert two to three acres of federal wetlands, remove two to three acres of habitat for the California gnatcatcher, impact 27 to 35 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat, and increase impervious surface area by 120 to 171 acres. New right-of-way would require acquisition of 93 to 161 residences and 110 to 275 businesses. Noise levels in 2035 would exceed 75 decibels at an additional 34 to 41 locations. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110158, Volume I--1,459 pages and maps, Volume II (Appendices)--503 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 32 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876246516?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - California Department of Transportation, San Bernardino, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 31 of 51] T2 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876246510; 14919-8_0031 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements on State Route 91 (SR-91) and Interstate 15 (I-15) in Riverside and Orange counties, California are proposed. SR-91 is the only major highway that provides the home-to-work connection for Riverside and San Bernardino County residents working in Orange and Los Angeles Counties. It is currently used by more than 280,000 vehicles per day at the Orange/Riverside County line and travel speeds are well below 30 miles per hour (mph) during peak travel periods. Traffic volumes are expected to increase by 50 percent by 2035. The SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project (CIP) would widen the existing highway from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange in the cities of Anaheim and Yorba Linda in Orange County to Pierce Street in the City of Riverside in Riverside County and improve I-15 in Riverside County between the I-15/Cajalco Road interchange and the I-15/Hidden Valley Parkway interchange in the City of Corona. Currently, SR-91 has four general purpose lanes in each direction, with those lanes varying in width from 11 to 12 feet from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange to the SR-91/ I-15 interchange, and three 12-foot-wide lanes in each direction from the SR-91/I-15 interchange to Pierce Street. In addition, there are two tolled express lanes and one high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction. The tolled express lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin in Orange County west of the SR-91/SR-55 interchange and end at the Orange/Riverside County line. The two HOV lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin where the tolled express lanes end just east of the Orange/Riverside County line and extend to Mary Street in the City of Riverside. This draft EIS evaluates two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. Both build alternatives would add one general purpose lane in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15 and would include improvements to I-15 between the Cajalco Road interchange and the Hidden Valley Parkway interchange. The two build alternatives would provide auxiliary lanes or collector-distributor roads at interchanges and would modify the existing interchange geometrics to improve traffic operations. The build alternatives would also upgrade existing SR-91 to standard shoulder, lane, and buffer widths where those upgrades can be accommodated. Under Alternative 1, the existing HOV facilities and tolled express lanes would be maintained in their current configurations. Alternative 2, which is the locally preferred alternative, would provide two tolled express lanes in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15. The existing HOV and express lanes would be incorporated into these two tolled express lanes. East of I-15, the HOV lanes in Alternative 1 and the tolled express lanes in Alternative 2 would transition to the existing HOV and general purpose lanes at Mary Street. Alternative 1 would provide one median HOV lane in each direction on I-15 between SR-91 and Ontario Avenue. Alternative 2 would provide one median tolled express lane in each direction on I-15 between Hidden Valley Parkway and Cajalco Road. Local access at the existing interchanges is expected to be maintained except at West Grand Boulevard, where the existing half-diamond interchange ramps would be replaced with improved local connectivity to the Lincoln Avenue interchange. Implementation of the project is proposed in phases over a 20-year period and the total costs of Alternatives 1 and 2 are estimated at $990 million to $1.0 billion and $1.35 billion to $1.43 billion, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the movement of vehicles and goods within the corridor to more effectively serve existing and future travel demand between and within Riverside and Orange Counties. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed improvements would permanently convert 17 to 20 acres of farmland and grazing land, convert two to three acres of federal wetlands, remove two to three acres of habitat for the California gnatcatcher, impact 27 to 35 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat, and increase impervious surface area by 120 to 171 acres. New right-of-way would require acquisition of 93 to 161 residences and 110 to 275 businesses. Noise levels in 2035 would exceed 75 decibels at an additional 34 to 41 locations. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110158, Volume I--1,459 pages and maps, Volume II (Appendices)--503 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 31 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876246510?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - California Department of Transportation, San Bernardino, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 43 of 51] T2 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876245145; 14919-8_0043 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements on State Route 91 (SR-91) and Interstate 15 (I-15) in Riverside and Orange counties, California are proposed. SR-91 is the only major highway that provides the home-to-work connection for Riverside and San Bernardino County residents working in Orange and Los Angeles Counties. It is currently used by more than 280,000 vehicles per day at the Orange/Riverside County line and travel speeds are well below 30 miles per hour (mph) during peak travel periods. Traffic volumes are expected to increase by 50 percent by 2035. The SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project (CIP) would widen the existing highway from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange in the cities of Anaheim and Yorba Linda in Orange County to Pierce Street in the City of Riverside in Riverside County and improve I-15 in Riverside County between the I-15/Cajalco Road interchange and the I-15/Hidden Valley Parkway interchange in the City of Corona. Currently, SR-91 has four general purpose lanes in each direction, with those lanes varying in width from 11 to 12 feet from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange to the SR-91/ I-15 interchange, and three 12-foot-wide lanes in each direction from the SR-91/I-15 interchange to Pierce Street. In addition, there are two tolled express lanes and one high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction. The tolled express lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin in Orange County west of the SR-91/SR-55 interchange and end at the Orange/Riverside County line. The two HOV lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin where the tolled express lanes end just east of the Orange/Riverside County line and extend to Mary Street in the City of Riverside. This draft EIS evaluates two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. Both build alternatives would add one general purpose lane in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15 and would include improvements to I-15 between the Cajalco Road interchange and the Hidden Valley Parkway interchange. The two build alternatives would provide auxiliary lanes or collector-distributor roads at interchanges and would modify the existing interchange geometrics to improve traffic operations. The build alternatives would also upgrade existing SR-91 to standard shoulder, lane, and buffer widths where those upgrades can be accommodated. Under Alternative 1, the existing HOV facilities and tolled express lanes would be maintained in their current configurations. Alternative 2, which is the locally preferred alternative, would provide two tolled express lanes in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15. The existing HOV and express lanes would be incorporated into these two tolled express lanes. East of I-15, the HOV lanes in Alternative 1 and the tolled express lanes in Alternative 2 would transition to the existing HOV and general purpose lanes at Mary Street. Alternative 1 would provide one median HOV lane in each direction on I-15 between SR-91 and Ontario Avenue. Alternative 2 would provide one median tolled express lane in each direction on I-15 between Hidden Valley Parkway and Cajalco Road. Local access at the existing interchanges is expected to be maintained except at West Grand Boulevard, where the existing half-diamond interchange ramps would be replaced with improved local connectivity to the Lincoln Avenue interchange. Implementation of the project is proposed in phases over a 20-year period and the total costs of Alternatives 1 and 2 are estimated at $990 million to $1.0 billion and $1.35 billion to $1.43 billion, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the movement of vehicles and goods within the corridor to more effectively serve existing and future travel demand between and within Riverside and Orange Counties. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed improvements would permanently convert 17 to 20 acres of farmland and grazing land, convert two to three acres of federal wetlands, remove two to three acres of habitat for the California gnatcatcher, impact 27 to 35 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat, and increase impervious surface area by 120 to 171 acres. New right-of-way would require acquisition of 93 to 161 residences and 110 to 275 businesses. Noise levels in 2035 would exceed 75 decibels at an additional 34 to 41 locations. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110158, Volume I--1,459 pages and maps, Volume II (Appendices)--503 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 43 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876245145?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - California Department of Transportation, San Bernardino, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 42 of 51] T2 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876245136; 14919-8_0042 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements on State Route 91 (SR-91) and Interstate 15 (I-15) in Riverside and Orange counties, California are proposed. SR-91 is the only major highway that provides the home-to-work connection for Riverside and San Bernardino County residents working in Orange and Los Angeles Counties. It is currently used by more than 280,000 vehicles per day at the Orange/Riverside County line and travel speeds are well below 30 miles per hour (mph) during peak travel periods. Traffic volumes are expected to increase by 50 percent by 2035. The SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project (CIP) would widen the existing highway from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange in the cities of Anaheim and Yorba Linda in Orange County to Pierce Street in the City of Riverside in Riverside County and improve I-15 in Riverside County between the I-15/Cajalco Road interchange and the I-15/Hidden Valley Parkway interchange in the City of Corona. Currently, SR-91 has four general purpose lanes in each direction, with those lanes varying in width from 11 to 12 feet from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange to the SR-91/ I-15 interchange, and three 12-foot-wide lanes in each direction from the SR-91/I-15 interchange to Pierce Street. In addition, there are two tolled express lanes and one high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction. The tolled express lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin in Orange County west of the SR-91/SR-55 interchange and end at the Orange/Riverside County line. The two HOV lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin where the tolled express lanes end just east of the Orange/Riverside County line and extend to Mary Street in the City of Riverside. This draft EIS evaluates two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. Both build alternatives would add one general purpose lane in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15 and would include improvements to I-15 between the Cajalco Road interchange and the Hidden Valley Parkway interchange. The two build alternatives would provide auxiliary lanes or collector-distributor roads at interchanges and would modify the existing interchange geometrics to improve traffic operations. The build alternatives would also upgrade existing SR-91 to standard shoulder, lane, and buffer widths where those upgrades can be accommodated. Under Alternative 1, the existing HOV facilities and tolled express lanes would be maintained in their current configurations. Alternative 2, which is the locally preferred alternative, would provide two tolled express lanes in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15. The existing HOV and express lanes would be incorporated into these two tolled express lanes. East of I-15, the HOV lanes in Alternative 1 and the tolled express lanes in Alternative 2 would transition to the existing HOV and general purpose lanes at Mary Street. Alternative 1 would provide one median HOV lane in each direction on I-15 between SR-91 and Ontario Avenue. Alternative 2 would provide one median tolled express lane in each direction on I-15 between Hidden Valley Parkway and Cajalco Road. Local access at the existing interchanges is expected to be maintained except at West Grand Boulevard, where the existing half-diamond interchange ramps would be replaced with improved local connectivity to the Lincoln Avenue interchange. Implementation of the project is proposed in phases over a 20-year period and the total costs of Alternatives 1 and 2 are estimated at $990 million to $1.0 billion and $1.35 billion to $1.43 billion, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the movement of vehicles and goods within the corridor to more effectively serve existing and future travel demand between and within Riverside and Orange Counties. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed improvements would permanently convert 17 to 20 acres of farmland and grazing land, convert two to three acres of federal wetlands, remove two to three acres of habitat for the California gnatcatcher, impact 27 to 35 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat, and increase impervious surface area by 120 to 171 acres. New right-of-way would require acquisition of 93 to 161 residences and 110 to 275 businesses. Noise levels in 2035 would exceed 75 decibels at an additional 34 to 41 locations. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110158, Volume I--1,459 pages and maps, Volume II (Appendices)--503 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 42 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876245136?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - California Department of Transportation, San Bernardino, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 36 of 51] T2 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876244359; 14919-8_0036 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements on State Route 91 (SR-91) and Interstate 15 (I-15) in Riverside and Orange counties, California are proposed. SR-91 is the only major highway that provides the home-to-work connection for Riverside and San Bernardino County residents working in Orange and Los Angeles Counties. It is currently used by more than 280,000 vehicles per day at the Orange/Riverside County line and travel speeds are well below 30 miles per hour (mph) during peak travel periods. Traffic volumes are expected to increase by 50 percent by 2035. The SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project (CIP) would widen the existing highway from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange in the cities of Anaheim and Yorba Linda in Orange County to Pierce Street in the City of Riverside in Riverside County and improve I-15 in Riverside County between the I-15/Cajalco Road interchange and the I-15/Hidden Valley Parkway interchange in the City of Corona. Currently, SR-91 has four general purpose lanes in each direction, with those lanes varying in width from 11 to 12 feet from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange to the SR-91/ I-15 interchange, and three 12-foot-wide lanes in each direction from the SR-91/I-15 interchange to Pierce Street. In addition, there are two tolled express lanes and one high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction. The tolled express lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin in Orange County west of the SR-91/SR-55 interchange and end at the Orange/Riverside County line. The two HOV lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin where the tolled express lanes end just east of the Orange/Riverside County line and extend to Mary Street in the City of Riverside. This draft EIS evaluates two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. Both build alternatives would add one general purpose lane in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15 and would include improvements to I-15 between the Cajalco Road interchange and the Hidden Valley Parkway interchange. The two build alternatives would provide auxiliary lanes or collector-distributor roads at interchanges and would modify the existing interchange geometrics to improve traffic operations. The build alternatives would also upgrade existing SR-91 to standard shoulder, lane, and buffer widths where those upgrades can be accommodated. Under Alternative 1, the existing HOV facilities and tolled express lanes would be maintained in their current configurations. Alternative 2, which is the locally preferred alternative, would provide two tolled express lanes in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15. The existing HOV and express lanes would be incorporated into these two tolled express lanes. East of I-15, the HOV lanes in Alternative 1 and the tolled express lanes in Alternative 2 would transition to the existing HOV and general purpose lanes at Mary Street. Alternative 1 would provide one median HOV lane in each direction on I-15 between SR-91 and Ontario Avenue. Alternative 2 would provide one median tolled express lane in each direction on I-15 between Hidden Valley Parkway and Cajalco Road. Local access at the existing interchanges is expected to be maintained except at West Grand Boulevard, where the existing half-diamond interchange ramps would be replaced with improved local connectivity to the Lincoln Avenue interchange. Implementation of the project is proposed in phases over a 20-year period and the total costs of Alternatives 1 and 2 are estimated at $990 million to $1.0 billion and $1.35 billion to $1.43 billion, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the movement of vehicles and goods within the corridor to more effectively serve existing and future travel demand between and within Riverside and Orange Counties. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed improvements would permanently convert 17 to 20 acres of farmland and grazing land, convert two to three acres of federal wetlands, remove two to three acres of habitat for the California gnatcatcher, impact 27 to 35 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat, and increase impervious surface area by 120 to 171 acres. New right-of-way would require acquisition of 93 to 161 residences and 110 to 275 businesses. Noise levels in 2035 would exceed 75 decibels at an additional 34 to 41 locations. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110158, Volume I--1,459 pages and maps, Volume II (Appendices)--503 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 36 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876244359?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - California Department of Transportation, San Bernardino, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 35 of 51] T2 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876244335; 14919-8_0035 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements on State Route 91 (SR-91) and Interstate 15 (I-15) in Riverside and Orange counties, California are proposed. SR-91 is the only major highway that provides the home-to-work connection for Riverside and San Bernardino County residents working in Orange and Los Angeles Counties. It is currently used by more than 280,000 vehicles per day at the Orange/Riverside County line and travel speeds are well below 30 miles per hour (mph) during peak travel periods. Traffic volumes are expected to increase by 50 percent by 2035. The SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project (CIP) would widen the existing highway from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange in the cities of Anaheim and Yorba Linda in Orange County to Pierce Street in the City of Riverside in Riverside County and improve I-15 in Riverside County between the I-15/Cajalco Road interchange and the I-15/Hidden Valley Parkway interchange in the City of Corona. Currently, SR-91 has four general purpose lanes in each direction, with those lanes varying in width from 11 to 12 feet from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange to the SR-91/ I-15 interchange, and three 12-foot-wide lanes in each direction from the SR-91/I-15 interchange to Pierce Street. In addition, there are two tolled express lanes and one high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction. The tolled express lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin in Orange County west of the SR-91/SR-55 interchange and end at the Orange/Riverside County line. The two HOV lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin where the tolled express lanes end just east of the Orange/Riverside County line and extend to Mary Street in the City of Riverside. This draft EIS evaluates two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. Both build alternatives would add one general purpose lane in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15 and would include improvements to I-15 between the Cajalco Road interchange and the Hidden Valley Parkway interchange. The two build alternatives would provide auxiliary lanes or collector-distributor roads at interchanges and would modify the existing interchange geometrics to improve traffic operations. The build alternatives would also upgrade existing SR-91 to standard shoulder, lane, and buffer widths where those upgrades can be accommodated. Under Alternative 1, the existing HOV facilities and tolled express lanes would be maintained in their current configurations. Alternative 2, which is the locally preferred alternative, would provide two tolled express lanes in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15. The existing HOV and express lanes would be incorporated into these two tolled express lanes. East of I-15, the HOV lanes in Alternative 1 and the tolled express lanes in Alternative 2 would transition to the existing HOV and general purpose lanes at Mary Street. Alternative 1 would provide one median HOV lane in each direction on I-15 between SR-91 and Ontario Avenue. Alternative 2 would provide one median tolled express lane in each direction on I-15 between Hidden Valley Parkway and Cajalco Road. Local access at the existing interchanges is expected to be maintained except at West Grand Boulevard, where the existing half-diamond interchange ramps would be replaced with improved local connectivity to the Lincoln Avenue interchange. Implementation of the project is proposed in phases over a 20-year period and the total costs of Alternatives 1 and 2 are estimated at $990 million to $1.0 billion and $1.35 billion to $1.43 billion, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the movement of vehicles and goods within the corridor to more effectively serve existing and future travel demand between and within Riverside and Orange Counties. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed improvements would permanently convert 17 to 20 acres of farmland and grazing land, convert two to three acres of federal wetlands, remove two to three acres of habitat for the California gnatcatcher, impact 27 to 35 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat, and increase impervious surface area by 120 to 171 acres. New right-of-way would require acquisition of 93 to 161 residences and 110 to 275 businesses. Noise levels in 2035 would exceed 75 decibels at an additional 34 to 41 locations. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110158, Volume I--1,459 pages and maps, Volume II (Appendices)--503 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 35 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876244335?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - California Department of Transportation, San Bernardino, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 34 of 51] T2 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876244321; 14919-8_0034 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements on State Route 91 (SR-91) and Interstate 15 (I-15) in Riverside and Orange counties, California are proposed. SR-91 is the only major highway that provides the home-to-work connection for Riverside and San Bernardino County residents working in Orange and Los Angeles Counties. It is currently used by more than 280,000 vehicles per day at the Orange/Riverside County line and travel speeds are well below 30 miles per hour (mph) during peak travel periods. Traffic volumes are expected to increase by 50 percent by 2035. The SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project (CIP) would widen the existing highway from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange in the cities of Anaheim and Yorba Linda in Orange County to Pierce Street in the City of Riverside in Riverside County and improve I-15 in Riverside County between the I-15/Cajalco Road interchange and the I-15/Hidden Valley Parkway interchange in the City of Corona. Currently, SR-91 has four general purpose lanes in each direction, with those lanes varying in width from 11 to 12 feet from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange to the SR-91/ I-15 interchange, and three 12-foot-wide lanes in each direction from the SR-91/I-15 interchange to Pierce Street. In addition, there are two tolled express lanes and one high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction. The tolled express lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin in Orange County west of the SR-91/SR-55 interchange and end at the Orange/Riverside County line. The two HOV lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin where the tolled express lanes end just east of the Orange/Riverside County line and extend to Mary Street in the City of Riverside. This draft EIS evaluates two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. Both build alternatives would add one general purpose lane in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15 and would include improvements to I-15 between the Cajalco Road interchange and the Hidden Valley Parkway interchange. The two build alternatives would provide auxiliary lanes or collector-distributor roads at interchanges and would modify the existing interchange geometrics to improve traffic operations. The build alternatives would also upgrade existing SR-91 to standard shoulder, lane, and buffer widths where those upgrades can be accommodated. Under Alternative 1, the existing HOV facilities and tolled express lanes would be maintained in their current configurations. Alternative 2, which is the locally preferred alternative, would provide two tolled express lanes in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15. The existing HOV and express lanes would be incorporated into these two tolled express lanes. East of I-15, the HOV lanes in Alternative 1 and the tolled express lanes in Alternative 2 would transition to the existing HOV and general purpose lanes at Mary Street. Alternative 1 would provide one median HOV lane in each direction on I-15 between SR-91 and Ontario Avenue. Alternative 2 would provide one median tolled express lane in each direction on I-15 between Hidden Valley Parkway and Cajalco Road. Local access at the existing interchanges is expected to be maintained except at West Grand Boulevard, where the existing half-diamond interchange ramps would be replaced with improved local connectivity to the Lincoln Avenue interchange. Implementation of the project is proposed in phases over a 20-year period and the total costs of Alternatives 1 and 2 are estimated at $990 million to $1.0 billion and $1.35 billion to $1.43 billion, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the movement of vehicles and goods within the corridor to more effectively serve existing and future travel demand between and within Riverside and Orange Counties. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed improvements would permanently convert 17 to 20 acres of farmland and grazing land, convert two to three acres of federal wetlands, remove two to three acres of habitat for the California gnatcatcher, impact 27 to 35 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat, and increase impervious surface area by 120 to 171 acres. New right-of-way would require acquisition of 93 to 161 residences and 110 to 275 businesses. Noise levels in 2035 would exceed 75 decibels at an additional 34 to 41 locations. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110158, Volume I--1,459 pages and maps, Volume II (Appendices)--503 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 34 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876244321?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - California Department of Transportation, San Bernardino, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 24 of 51] T2 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876244306; 14919-8_0024 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements on State Route 91 (SR-91) and Interstate 15 (I-15) in Riverside and Orange counties, California are proposed. SR-91 is the only major highway that provides the home-to-work connection for Riverside and San Bernardino County residents working in Orange and Los Angeles Counties. It is currently used by more than 280,000 vehicles per day at the Orange/Riverside County line and travel speeds are well below 30 miles per hour (mph) during peak travel periods. Traffic volumes are expected to increase by 50 percent by 2035. The SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project (CIP) would widen the existing highway from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange in the cities of Anaheim and Yorba Linda in Orange County to Pierce Street in the City of Riverside in Riverside County and improve I-15 in Riverside County between the I-15/Cajalco Road interchange and the I-15/Hidden Valley Parkway interchange in the City of Corona. Currently, SR-91 has four general purpose lanes in each direction, with those lanes varying in width from 11 to 12 feet from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange to the SR-91/ I-15 interchange, and three 12-foot-wide lanes in each direction from the SR-91/I-15 interchange to Pierce Street. In addition, there are two tolled express lanes and one high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction. The tolled express lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin in Orange County west of the SR-91/SR-55 interchange and end at the Orange/Riverside County line. The two HOV lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin where the tolled express lanes end just east of the Orange/Riverside County line and extend to Mary Street in the City of Riverside. This draft EIS evaluates two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. Both build alternatives would add one general purpose lane in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15 and would include improvements to I-15 between the Cajalco Road interchange and the Hidden Valley Parkway interchange. The two build alternatives would provide auxiliary lanes or collector-distributor roads at interchanges and would modify the existing interchange geometrics to improve traffic operations. The build alternatives would also upgrade existing SR-91 to standard shoulder, lane, and buffer widths where those upgrades can be accommodated. Under Alternative 1, the existing HOV facilities and tolled express lanes would be maintained in their current configurations. Alternative 2, which is the locally preferred alternative, would provide two tolled express lanes in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15. The existing HOV and express lanes would be incorporated into these two tolled express lanes. East of I-15, the HOV lanes in Alternative 1 and the tolled express lanes in Alternative 2 would transition to the existing HOV and general purpose lanes at Mary Street. Alternative 1 would provide one median HOV lane in each direction on I-15 between SR-91 and Ontario Avenue. Alternative 2 would provide one median tolled express lane in each direction on I-15 between Hidden Valley Parkway and Cajalco Road. Local access at the existing interchanges is expected to be maintained except at West Grand Boulevard, where the existing half-diamond interchange ramps would be replaced with improved local connectivity to the Lincoln Avenue interchange. Implementation of the project is proposed in phases over a 20-year period and the total costs of Alternatives 1 and 2 are estimated at $990 million to $1.0 billion and $1.35 billion to $1.43 billion, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the movement of vehicles and goods within the corridor to more effectively serve existing and future travel demand between and within Riverside and Orange Counties. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed improvements would permanently convert 17 to 20 acres of farmland and grazing land, convert two to three acres of federal wetlands, remove two to three acres of habitat for the California gnatcatcher, impact 27 to 35 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat, and increase impervious surface area by 120 to 171 acres. New right-of-way would require acquisition of 93 to 161 residences and 110 to 275 businesses. Noise levels in 2035 would exceed 75 decibels at an additional 34 to 41 locations. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110158, Volume I--1,459 pages and maps, Volume II (Appendices)--503 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 24 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876244306?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - California Department of Transportation, San Bernardino, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873116503; 14919 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements on State Route 91 (SR-91) and Interstate 15 (I-15) in Riverside and Orange counties, California are proposed. SR-91 is the only major highway that provides the home-to-work connection for Riverside and San Bernardino County residents working in Orange and Los Angeles Counties. It is currently used by more than 280,000 vehicles per day at the Orange/Riverside County line and travel speeds are well below 30 miles per hour (mph) during peak travel periods. Traffic volumes are expected to increase by 50 percent by 2035. The SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project (CIP) would widen the existing highway from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange in the cities of Anaheim and Yorba Linda in Orange County to Pierce Street in the City of Riverside in Riverside County and improve I-15 in Riverside County between the I-15/Cajalco Road interchange and the I-15/Hidden Valley Parkway interchange in the City of Corona. Currently, SR-91 has four general purpose lanes in each direction, with those lanes varying in width from 11 to 12 feet from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange to the SR-91/ I-15 interchange, and three 12-foot-wide lanes in each direction from the SR-91/I-15 interchange to Pierce Street. In addition, there are two tolled express lanes and one high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction. The tolled express lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin in Orange County west of the SR-91/SR-55 interchange and end at the Orange/Riverside County line. The two HOV lanes, which are 11 to 12 feet wide, begin where the tolled express lanes end just east of the Orange/Riverside County line and extend to Mary Street in the City of Riverside. This draft EIS evaluates two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. Both build alternatives would add one general purpose lane in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15 and would include improvements to I-15 between the Cajalco Road interchange and the Hidden Valley Parkway interchange. The two build alternatives would provide auxiliary lanes or collector-distributor roads at interchanges and would modify the existing interchange geometrics to improve traffic operations. The build alternatives would also upgrade existing SR-91 to standard shoulder, lane, and buffer widths where those upgrades can be accommodated. Under Alternative 1, the existing HOV facilities and tolled express lanes would be maintained in their current configurations. Alternative 2, which is the locally preferred alternative, would provide two tolled express lanes in each direction on SR-91 between SR-241 and I-15. The existing HOV and express lanes would be incorporated into these two tolled express lanes. East of I-15, the HOV lanes in Alternative 1 and the tolled express lanes in Alternative 2 would transition to the existing HOV and general purpose lanes at Mary Street. Alternative 1 would provide one median HOV lane in each direction on I-15 between SR-91 and Ontario Avenue. Alternative 2 would provide one median tolled express lane in each direction on I-15 between Hidden Valley Parkway and Cajalco Road. Local access at the existing interchanges is expected to be maintained except at West Grand Boulevard, where the existing half-diamond interchange ramps would be replaced with improved local connectivity to the Lincoln Avenue interchange. Implementation of the project is proposed in phases over a 20-year period and the total costs of Alternatives 1 and 2 are estimated at $990 million to $1.0 billion and $1.35 billion to $1.43 billion, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the movement of vehicles and goods within the corridor to more effectively serve existing and future travel demand between and within Riverside and Orange Counties. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed improvements would permanently convert 17 to 20 acres of farmland and grazing land, convert two to three acres of federal wetlands, remove two to three acres of habitat for the California gnatcatcher, impact 27 to 35 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat, and increase impervious surface area by 120 to 171 acres. New right-of-way would require acquisition of 93 to 161 residences and 110 to 275 businesses. Noise levels in 2035 would exceed 75 decibels at an additional 34 to 41 locations. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110158, Volume I--1,459 pages and maps, Volume II (Appendices)--503 pages, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873116503?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=STATE+ROUTE+91+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+ORANGE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - California Department of Transportation, San Bernardino, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. 30 (FEDERAL AID PRIMARY ROUTE 309) FROM ILLINOIS 136 TO ILLINOIS 40 IN WHITESIDE COUNTY, ILLINOIS. AN - 873116498; 14923 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to a 24-mile segment of U.S. 30 from IL 136/Frog Pond Road to IL 40 in Whiteside County, Illinois are proposed. The 10-mile wide project study area comprises 697 square miles in northwestern Illinois and passes through six townships including Fulton, Ustick, Union Grove, Mount Pleasant, Hopkins, and Coloma, and the communities of Fulton (at the western terminus), Morrison (located in the central portion of the project study area), and Rock Falls and Sterling (at the eastern terminus). The existing roadway within the limits of this study area exhibits variable rural and urban typical sections. U.S. 30 is a National Highway System route and is designated as a major arterial and truck route. The project study area includes more than 70 intersecting side roads, several signalized intersections, and two four-way stops. Congestion, substandard design, and fixed objects within the clear zone at intersections are the principal factors contributing to crashes within the project study area. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative and two build alternatives which would widen the existing two-lane facility to a four-lane expressway with a median. From IL 136/Frog Pond Road to just west of the city of Morrison and from just east of the city of Morrison to IL 40, generally the improvements would stay on the existing U.S. 30 roadway. New alignment would be constructed either to the north or the south of the city of Morrison. Alternative 4 would bypass Morrison to the north through an area of residences located along Norrish Road, rolling hills, and forest. Alternative 5 would bypass Morrison to the south through an area of flat agricultural ground and scattered farmsteads. Total costs for implementing Alternatives 4 and 5 are estimated in 2020 dollars at $414 million and $383 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would address existing capacity deficiencies and traffic congestion, increasing transportation demand, lack of roadway continuity, and the overall safety of the roadway within the U.S. 30 project study area in Whiteside County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New right-of-way would require conversion of 614 to 625 acres of agricultural land and the displacement of 30 to 37 residences and four businesses. The build alternatives would cross eight to nine streams, impact 0.24 acre of wetland, and encroach upon an additional 16,372 to 21,911 linear feet of 100-year floodplain. Construction in or adjacent to Elkhorn Creek and the Rock River would impact the black sandshell mussel, a state-threatened species. Under Alternative 4, the north bypass of Morrison would bisect a small neighborhood and impact community cohesion. Motels, gas stations, and fast food restaurants in Morrison could experience a reduction in business. Approximately 20 noise sensitive receivers would be impacted. 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: 110162, 1,047 pages and maps, May 27, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Safety Analyses KW - Shellfish KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Illinois KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873116498?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+30+%28FEDERAL+AID+PRIMARY+ROUTE+309%29+FROM+ILLINOIS+136+TO+ILLINOIS+40+IN+WHITESIDE+COUNTY%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.title=U.S.+30+%28FEDERAL+AID+PRIMARY+ROUTE+309%29+FROM+ILLINOIS+136+TO+ILLINOIS+40+IN+WHITESIDE+COUNTY%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Springfield, Illinois; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 27, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Microbial Biodegradation of a New Shock Insensitive Explosive 3-nitro-1,2,4-triazole-5-one (NTO) T2 - 111th General Meeting of the American Society for Microbiology (ASM 2011) AN - 1312980755; 6039199 JF - 111th General Meeting of the American Society for Microbiology (ASM 2011) AU - Jung, C AU - Bodeis, C AU - Indest, K AU - Crocker, F Y1 - 2011/05/21/ PY - 2011 DA - 2011 May 21 KW - Explosives KW - Biodegradation KW - Shock UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1312980755?accountid=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=111th+General+Meeting+of+the+American+Society+for+Microbiology+%28ASM+2011%29&rft.atitle=Microbial+Biodegradation+of+a+New+Shock+Insensitive+Explosive+3-nitro-1%2C2%2C4-triazole-5-one+%28NTO%29&rft.au=Jung%2C+C%3BBodeis%2C+C%3BIndest%2C+K%3BCrocker%2C+F&rft.aulast=Jung&rft.aufirst=C&rft.date=2011-05-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=111th+General+Meeting+of+the+American+Society+for+Microbiology+%28ASM+2011%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.abstractsonline.com/plan/Browse.aspx LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2013-02-26 N1 - Last updated - 2013-02-28 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Demonstration of Horizontal Gene Transfer (HGT) of RDX Degrading Genes xplAB in a Sterile Model Soil System T2 - 111th General Meeting of the American Society for Microbiology (ASM 2011) AN - 1312941650; 6039187 JF - 111th General Meeting of the American Society for Microbiology (ASM 2011) AU - Bodeis, C AU - Jung, C AU - Crocker, F AU - Indest, K Y1 - 2011/05/21/ PY - 2011 DA - 2011 May 21 KW - Soil KW - Gene transfer KW - X chromosome UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1312941650?accountid=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=111th+General+Meeting+of+the+American+Society+for+Microbiology+%28ASM+2011%29&rft.atitle=Demonstration+of+Horizontal+Gene+Transfer+%28HGT%29+of+RDX+Degrading+Genes+xplAB+in+a+Sterile+Model+Soil+System&rft.au=Bodeis%2C+C%3BJung%2C+C%3BCrocker%2C+F%3BIndest%2C+K&rft.aulast=Bodeis&rft.aufirst=C&rft.date=2011-05-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=111th+General+Meeting+of+the+American+Society+for+Microbiology+%28ASM+2011%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.abstractsonline.com/plan/Browse.aspx LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2013-02-26 N1 - Last updated - 2013-02-28 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JEPSON PARKWAY PROJECT, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 13 of 13] T2 - JEPSON PARKWAY PROJECT, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131783; 14913-2_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of 12 miles of roadway infrastructure in Solano County, California is proposed. The 12-mile corridor, referred to as the Jepson Corridor, is located within the jurisdictions of the cities of Suisun City, Fairfield, and Vacaville, and unincorporated portions of central Solano County. The Jepson Parkway project would upgrade and link a series of existing local two- and four-lane roadways (as well as construct an extension of an existing roadway under one alternative) to provide a four- to six-lane north-south travel route for motorists who face increasing congestion when traveling between jurisdictions in central Solano County. The parkway improvements would extend from the intersection of Orange Drive and Leisure Town Road in Vacaville on the north to State Route (SR) 12/Walters Road in Suisun City in the south. Five alternatives, including a No Project Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, a four-lane divided arterial would be provided for the entire length of the corridor including improvements to Leisure Town Road, Vanden Road, Cement Hill Road, and Walters Road. Project components would include: the widening of existing roadways along the alternative; construction of a northern extension of Walters Road between Cement Hill Road and the intersection of Air Base Parkway; a grade separation (overpass) of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) mainline tracks as part of the Walters Road Extension; improvements at the Leisure Town Road crossings of Alamo Creek and New Alamo Creek; a new crossing of McCoy Creek; bicycle and pedestrian paths; landscaping; and utilities relocation. Depending on funding, the project would be constructed by segment until completion beginning in 2013. Assuming availability of funding, project construction would last 12 to 24 months on each segment, over a total duration of 48 to 60 months. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would meet the objectives of the regional Jepson Parkway Concept Plan, including safety improvements at various locations and along various road segments; relief from existing and anticipated traffic congestion on north-south routes in Solano County; and improved and new transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development for the preferred alternative would convert 75.4 acres of farmland and relocate 10 commercial enterprises and two community facilities. Habitat losses would include 3.5 acres of riparian woodland, 19 native oak trees, and 4.8 acres of wetlands. Impacts would affect three acres of habitat for the endangered Contra Costa goldfields wildflower, 22.7 acres of habitat for the California tiger salamander, and 57.4 acres of nesting and foraging habitat for Swainson's hawk. The roadway improvements would traverse 100-year floodplains. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards for sensitive receptor sites along Walters Road and Leisure Town Road. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0333D, Volume 32, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110152, Final EIS--510 pages and maps, Appendices--180 pages, Responses to Comments--180 pages, May 20, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Birds KW - Drainage KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Transportation KW - California 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/873131783?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JEPSON+PARKWAY+PROJECT%2C+SOLANO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=JEPSON+PARKWAY+PROJECT%2C+SOLANO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - California Department of Transportation, Oakland, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 20, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JEPSON PARKWAY PROJECT, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 12 of 13] T2 - JEPSON PARKWAY PROJECT, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131780; 14913-2_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of 12 miles of roadway infrastructure in Solano County, California is proposed. The 12-mile corridor, referred to as the Jepson Corridor, is located within the jurisdictions of the cities of Suisun City, Fairfield, and Vacaville, and unincorporated portions of central Solano County. The Jepson Parkway project would upgrade and link a series of existing local two- and four-lane roadways (as well as construct an extension of an existing roadway under one alternative) to provide a four- to six-lane north-south travel route for motorists who face increasing congestion when traveling between jurisdictions in central Solano County. The parkway improvements would extend from the intersection of Orange Drive and Leisure Town Road in Vacaville on the north to State Route (SR) 12/Walters Road in Suisun City in the south. Five alternatives, including a No Project Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, a four-lane divided arterial would be provided for the entire length of the corridor including improvements to Leisure Town Road, Vanden Road, Cement Hill Road, and Walters Road. Project components would include: the widening of existing roadways along the alternative; construction of a northern extension of Walters Road between Cement Hill Road and the intersection of Air Base Parkway; a grade separation (overpass) of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) mainline tracks as part of the Walters Road Extension; improvements at the Leisure Town Road crossings of Alamo Creek and New Alamo Creek; a new crossing of McCoy Creek; bicycle and pedestrian paths; landscaping; and utilities relocation. Depending on funding, the project would be constructed by segment until completion beginning in 2013. Assuming availability of funding, project construction would last 12 to 24 months on each segment, over a total duration of 48 to 60 months. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would meet the objectives of the regional Jepson Parkway Concept Plan, including safety improvements at various locations and along various road segments; relief from existing and anticipated traffic congestion on north-south routes in Solano County; and improved and new transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development for the preferred alternative would convert 75.4 acres of farmland and relocate 10 commercial enterprises and two community facilities. Habitat losses would include 3.5 acres of riparian woodland, 19 native oak trees, and 4.8 acres of wetlands. Impacts would affect three acres of habitat for the endangered Contra Costa goldfields wildflower, 22.7 acres of habitat for the California tiger salamander, and 57.4 acres of nesting and foraging habitat for Swainson's hawk. The roadway improvements would traverse 100-year floodplains. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards for sensitive receptor sites along Walters Road and Leisure Town Road. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0333D, Volume 32, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110152, Final EIS--510 pages and maps, Appendices--180 pages, Responses to Comments--180 pages, May 20, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Birds KW - Drainage KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Transportation KW - California 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/873131780?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JEPSON+PARKWAY+PROJECT%2C+SOLANO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=JEPSON+PARKWAY+PROJECT%2C+SOLANO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - California Department of Transportation, Oakland, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 20, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JEPSON PARKWAY PROJECT, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 11 of 13] T2 - JEPSON PARKWAY PROJECT, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131775; 14913-2_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of 12 miles of roadway infrastructure in Solano County, California is proposed. The 12-mile corridor, referred to as the Jepson Corridor, is located within the jurisdictions of the cities of Suisun City, Fairfield, and Vacaville, and unincorporated portions of central Solano County. The Jepson Parkway project would upgrade and link a series of existing local two- and four-lane roadways (as well as construct an extension of an existing roadway under one alternative) to provide a four- to six-lane north-south travel route for motorists who face increasing congestion when traveling between jurisdictions in central Solano County. The parkway improvements would extend from the intersection of Orange Drive and Leisure Town Road in Vacaville on the north to State Route (SR) 12/Walters Road in Suisun City in the south. Five alternatives, including a No Project Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, a four-lane divided arterial would be provided for the entire length of the corridor including improvements to Leisure Town Road, Vanden Road, Cement Hill Road, and Walters Road. Project components would include: the widening of existing roadways along the alternative; construction of a northern extension of Walters Road between Cement Hill Road and the intersection of Air Base Parkway; a grade separation (overpass) of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) mainline tracks as part of the Walters Road Extension; improvements at the Leisure Town Road crossings of Alamo Creek and New Alamo Creek; a new crossing of McCoy Creek; bicycle and pedestrian paths; landscaping; and utilities relocation. Depending on funding, the project would be constructed by segment until completion beginning in 2013. Assuming availability of funding, project construction would last 12 to 24 months on each segment, over a total duration of 48 to 60 months. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would meet the objectives of the regional Jepson Parkway Concept Plan, including safety improvements at various locations and along various road segments; relief from existing and anticipated traffic congestion on north-south routes in Solano County; and improved and new transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development for the preferred alternative would convert 75.4 acres of farmland and relocate 10 commercial enterprises and two community facilities. Habitat losses would include 3.5 acres of riparian woodland, 19 native oak trees, and 4.8 acres of wetlands. Impacts would affect three acres of habitat for the endangered Contra Costa goldfields wildflower, 22.7 acres of habitat for the California tiger salamander, and 57.4 acres of nesting and foraging habitat for Swainson's hawk. The roadway improvements would traverse 100-year floodplains. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards for sensitive receptor sites along Walters Road and Leisure Town Road. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0333D, Volume 32, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110152, Final EIS--510 pages and maps, Appendices--180 pages, Responses to Comments--180 pages, May 20, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Birds KW - Drainage KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Transportation KW - California 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/873131775?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JEPSON+PARKWAY+PROJECT%2C+SOLANO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=JEPSON+PARKWAY+PROJECT%2C+SOLANO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - California Department of Transportation, Oakland, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 20, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JEPSON PARKWAY PROJECT, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 10 of 13] T2 - JEPSON PARKWAY PROJECT, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131769; 14913-2_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of 12 miles of roadway infrastructure in Solano County, California is proposed. The 12-mile corridor, referred to as the Jepson Corridor, is located within the jurisdictions of the cities of Suisun City, Fairfield, and Vacaville, and unincorporated portions of central Solano County. The Jepson Parkway project would upgrade and link a series of existing local two- and four-lane roadways (as well as construct an extension of an existing roadway under one alternative) to provide a four- to six-lane north-south travel route for motorists who face increasing congestion when traveling between jurisdictions in central Solano County. The parkway improvements would extend from the intersection of Orange Drive and Leisure Town Road in Vacaville on the north to State Route (SR) 12/Walters Road in Suisun City in the south. Five alternatives, including a No Project Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, a four-lane divided arterial would be provided for the entire length of the corridor including improvements to Leisure Town Road, Vanden Road, Cement Hill Road, and Walters Road. Project components would include: the widening of existing roadways along the alternative; construction of a northern extension of Walters Road between Cement Hill Road and the intersection of Air Base Parkway; a grade separation (overpass) of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) mainline tracks as part of the Walters Road Extension; improvements at the Leisure Town Road crossings of Alamo Creek and New Alamo Creek; a new crossing of McCoy Creek; bicycle and pedestrian paths; landscaping; and utilities relocation. Depending on funding, the project would be constructed by segment until completion beginning in 2013. Assuming availability of funding, project construction would last 12 to 24 months on each segment, over a total duration of 48 to 60 months. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would meet the objectives of the regional Jepson Parkway Concept Plan, including safety improvements at various locations and along various road segments; relief from existing and anticipated traffic congestion on north-south routes in Solano County; and improved and new transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development for the preferred alternative would convert 75.4 acres of farmland and relocate 10 commercial enterprises and two community facilities. Habitat losses would include 3.5 acres of riparian woodland, 19 native oak trees, and 4.8 acres of wetlands. Impacts would affect three acres of habitat for the endangered Contra Costa goldfields wildflower, 22.7 acres of habitat for the California tiger salamander, and 57.4 acres of nesting and foraging habitat for Swainson's hawk. The roadway improvements would traverse 100-year floodplains. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards for sensitive receptor sites along Walters Road and Leisure Town Road. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0333D, Volume 32, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110152, Final EIS--510 pages and maps, Appendices--180 pages, Responses to Comments--180 pages, May 20, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Birds KW - Drainage KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Transportation KW - California 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/873131769?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JEPSON+PARKWAY+PROJECT%2C+SOLANO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=JEPSON+PARKWAY+PROJECT%2C+SOLANO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - California Department of Transportation, Oakland, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 20, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JEPSON PARKWAY PROJECT, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 9 of 13] T2 - JEPSON PARKWAY PROJECT, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131765; 14913-2_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of 12 miles of roadway infrastructure in Solano County, California is proposed. The 12-mile corridor, referred to as the Jepson Corridor, is located within the jurisdictions of the cities of Suisun City, Fairfield, and Vacaville, and unincorporated portions of central Solano County. The Jepson Parkway project would upgrade and link a series of existing local two- and four-lane roadways (as well as construct an extension of an existing roadway under one alternative) to provide a four- to six-lane north-south travel route for motorists who face increasing congestion when traveling between jurisdictions in central Solano County. The parkway improvements would extend from the intersection of Orange Drive and Leisure Town Road in Vacaville on the north to State Route (SR) 12/Walters Road in Suisun City in the south. Five alternatives, including a No Project Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, a four-lane divided arterial would be provided for the entire length of the corridor including improvements to Leisure Town Road, Vanden Road, Cement Hill Road, and Walters Road. Project components would include: the widening of existing roadways along the alternative; construction of a northern extension of Walters Road between Cement Hill Road and the intersection of Air Base Parkway; a grade separation (overpass) of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) mainline tracks as part of the Walters Road Extension; improvements at the Leisure Town Road crossings of Alamo Creek and New Alamo Creek; a new crossing of McCoy Creek; bicycle and pedestrian paths; landscaping; and utilities relocation. Depending on funding, the project would be constructed by segment until completion beginning in 2013. Assuming availability of funding, project construction would last 12 to 24 months on each segment, over a total duration of 48 to 60 months. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would meet the objectives of the regional Jepson Parkway Concept Plan, including safety improvements at various locations and along various road segments; relief from existing and anticipated traffic congestion on north-south routes in Solano County; and improved and new transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development for the preferred alternative would convert 75.4 acres of farmland and relocate 10 commercial enterprises and two community facilities. Habitat losses would include 3.5 acres of riparian woodland, 19 native oak trees, and 4.8 acres of wetlands. Impacts would affect three acres of habitat for the endangered Contra Costa goldfields wildflower, 22.7 acres of habitat for the California tiger salamander, and 57.4 acres of nesting and foraging habitat for Swainson's hawk. The roadway improvements would traverse 100-year floodplains. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards for sensitive receptor sites along Walters Road and Leisure Town Road. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0333D, Volume 32, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110152, Final EIS--510 pages and maps, Appendices--180 pages, Responses to Comments--180 pages, May 20, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Birds KW - Drainage KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Transportation KW - California 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/873131765?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JEPSON+PARKWAY+PROJECT%2C+SOLANO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=JEPSON+PARKWAY+PROJECT%2C+SOLANO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - California Department of Transportation, Oakland, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 20, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JEPSON PARKWAY PROJECT, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 8 of 13] T2 - JEPSON PARKWAY PROJECT, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131761; 14913-2_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of 12 miles of roadway infrastructure in Solano County, California is proposed. The 12-mile corridor, referred to as the Jepson Corridor, is located within the jurisdictions of the cities of Suisun City, Fairfield, and Vacaville, and unincorporated portions of central Solano County. The Jepson Parkway project would upgrade and link a series of existing local two- and four-lane roadways (as well as construct an extension of an existing roadway under one alternative) to provide a four- to six-lane north-south travel route for motorists who face increasing congestion when traveling between jurisdictions in central Solano County. The parkway improvements would extend from the intersection of Orange Drive and Leisure Town Road in Vacaville on the north to State Route (SR) 12/Walters Road in Suisun City in the south. Five alternatives, including a No Project Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, a four-lane divided arterial would be provided for the entire length of the corridor including improvements to Leisure Town Road, Vanden Road, Cement Hill Road, and Walters Road. Project components would include: the widening of existing roadways along the alternative; construction of a northern extension of Walters Road between Cement Hill Road and the intersection of Air Base Parkway; a grade separation (overpass) of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) mainline tracks as part of the Walters Road Extension; improvements at the Leisure Town Road crossings of Alamo Creek and New Alamo Creek; a new crossing of McCoy Creek; bicycle and pedestrian paths; landscaping; and utilities relocation. Depending on funding, the project would be constructed by segment until completion beginning in 2013. Assuming availability of funding, project construction would last 12 to 24 months on each segment, over a total duration of 48 to 60 months. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would meet the objectives of the regional Jepson Parkway Concept Plan, including safety improvements at various locations and along various road segments; relief from existing and anticipated traffic congestion on north-south routes in Solano County; and improved and new transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development for the preferred alternative would convert 75.4 acres of farmland and relocate 10 commercial enterprises and two community facilities. Habitat losses would include 3.5 acres of riparian woodland, 19 native oak trees, and 4.8 acres of wetlands. Impacts would affect three acres of habitat for the endangered Contra Costa goldfields wildflower, 22.7 acres of habitat for the California tiger salamander, and 57.4 acres of nesting and foraging habitat for Swainson's hawk. The roadway improvements would traverse 100-year floodplains. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards for sensitive receptor sites along Walters Road and Leisure Town Road. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0333D, Volume 32, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110152, Final EIS--510 pages and maps, Appendices--180 pages, Responses to Comments--180 pages, May 20, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Birds KW - Drainage KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Transportation KW - California 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/873131761?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - California Department of Transportation, Oakland, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 20, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JEPSON PARKWAY PROJECT, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 7 of 13] T2 - JEPSON PARKWAY PROJECT, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131759; 14913-2_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of 12 miles of roadway infrastructure in Solano County, California is proposed. The 12-mile corridor, referred to as the Jepson Corridor, is located within the jurisdictions of the cities of Suisun City, Fairfield, and Vacaville, and unincorporated portions of central Solano County. The Jepson Parkway project would upgrade and link a series of existing local two- and four-lane roadways (as well as construct an extension of an existing roadway under one alternative) to provide a four- to six-lane north-south travel route for motorists who face increasing congestion when traveling between jurisdictions in central Solano County. The parkway improvements would extend from the intersection of Orange Drive and Leisure Town Road in Vacaville on the north to State Route (SR) 12/Walters Road in Suisun City in the south. Five alternatives, including a No Project Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, a four-lane divided arterial would be provided for the entire length of the corridor including improvements to Leisure Town Road, Vanden Road, Cement Hill Road, and Walters Road. Project components would include: the widening of existing roadways along the alternative; construction of a northern extension of Walters Road between Cement Hill Road and the intersection of Air Base Parkway; a grade separation (overpass) of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) mainline tracks as part of the Walters Road Extension; improvements at the Leisure Town Road crossings of Alamo Creek and New Alamo Creek; a new crossing of McCoy Creek; bicycle and pedestrian paths; landscaping; and utilities relocation. Depending on funding, the project would be constructed by segment until completion beginning in 2013. Assuming availability of funding, project construction would last 12 to 24 months on each segment, over a total duration of 48 to 60 months. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would meet the objectives of the regional Jepson Parkway Concept Plan, including safety improvements at various locations and along various road segments; relief from existing and anticipated traffic congestion on north-south routes in Solano County; and improved and new transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development for the preferred alternative would convert 75.4 acres of farmland and relocate 10 commercial enterprises and two community facilities. Habitat losses would include 3.5 acres of riparian woodland, 19 native oak trees, and 4.8 acres of wetlands. Impacts would affect three acres of habitat for the endangered Contra Costa goldfields wildflower, 22.7 acres of habitat for the California tiger salamander, and 57.4 acres of nesting and foraging habitat for Swainson's hawk. The roadway improvements would traverse 100-year floodplains. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards for sensitive receptor sites along Walters Road and Leisure Town Road. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0333D, Volume 32, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110152, Final EIS--510 pages and maps, Appendices--180 pages, Responses to Comments--180 pages, May 20, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Birds KW - Drainage KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Transportation KW - California 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/873131759?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JEPSON+PARKWAY+PROJECT%2C+SOLANO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=JEPSON+PARKWAY+PROJECT%2C+SOLANO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - California Department of Transportation, Oakland, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 20, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JEPSON PARKWAY PROJECT, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 6 of 13] T2 - JEPSON PARKWAY PROJECT, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130181; 14913-2_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of 12 miles of roadway infrastructure in Solano County, California is proposed. The 12-mile corridor, referred to as the Jepson Corridor, is located within the jurisdictions of the cities of Suisun City, Fairfield, and Vacaville, and unincorporated portions of central Solano County. The Jepson Parkway project would upgrade and link a series of existing local two- and four-lane roadways (as well as construct an extension of an existing roadway under one alternative) to provide a four- to six-lane north-south travel route for motorists who face increasing congestion when traveling between jurisdictions in central Solano County. The parkway improvements would extend from the intersection of Orange Drive and Leisure Town Road in Vacaville on the north to State Route (SR) 12/Walters Road in Suisun City in the south. Five alternatives, including a No Project Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, a four-lane divided arterial would be provided for the entire length of the corridor including improvements to Leisure Town Road, Vanden Road, Cement Hill Road, and Walters Road. Project components would include: the widening of existing roadways along the alternative; construction of a northern extension of Walters Road between Cement Hill Road and the intersection of Air Base Parkway; a grade separation (overpass) of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) mainline tracks as part of the Walters Road Extension; improvements at the Leisure Town Road crossings of Alamo Creek and New Alamo Creek; a new crossing of McCoy Creek; bicycle and pedestrian paths; landscaping; and utilities relocation. Depending on funding, the project would be constructed by segment until completion beginning in 2013. Assuming availability of funding, project construction would last 12 to 24 months on each segment, over a total duration of 48 to 60 months. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would meet the objectives of the regional Jepson Parkway Concept Plan, including safety improvements at various locations and along various road segments; relief from existing and anticipated traffic congestion on north-south routes in Solano County; and improved and new transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development for the preferred alternative would convert 75.4 acres of farmland and relocate 10 commercial enterprises and two community facilities. Habitat losses would include 3.5 acres of riparian woodland, 19 native oak trees, and 4.8 acres of wetlands. Impacts would affect three acres of habitat for the endangered Contra Costa goldfields wildflower, 22.7 acres of habitat for the California tiger salamander, and 57.4 acres of nesting and foraging habitat for Swainson's hawk. The roadway improvements would traverse 100-year floodplains. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards for sensitive receptor sites along Walters Road and Leisure Town Road. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0333D, Volume 32, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110152, Final EIS--510 pages and maps, Appendices--180 pages, Responses to Comments--180 pages, May 20, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Birds KW - Drainage KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Transportation KW - California 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/873130181?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JEPSON+PARKWAY+PROJECT%2C+SOLANO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=JEPSON+PARKWAY+PROJECT%2C+SOLANO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - California Department of Transportation, Oakland, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 20, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JEPSON PARKWAY PROJECT, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 13] T2 - JEPSON PARKWAY PROJECT, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130164; 14913-2_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of 12 miles of roadway infrastructure in Solano County, California is proposed. The 12-mile corridor, referred to as the Jepson Corridor, is located within the jurisdictions of the cities of Suisun City, Fairfield, and Vacaville, and unincorporated portions of central Solano County. The Jepson Parkway project would upgrade and link a series of existing local two- and four-lane roadways (as well as construct an extension of an existing roadway under one alternative) to provide a four- to six-lane north-south travel route for motorists who face increasing congestion when traveling between jurisdictions in central Solano County. The parkway improvements would extend from the intersection of Orange Drive and Leisure Town Road in Vacaville on the north to State Route (SR) 12/Walters Road in Suisun City in the south. Five alternatives, including a No Project Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, a four-lane divided arterial would be provided for the entire length of the corridor including improvements to Leisure Town Road, Vanden Road, Cement Hill Road, and Walters Road. Project components would include: the widening of existing roadways along the alternative; construction of a northern extension of Walters Road between Cement Hill Road and the intersection of Air Base Parkway; a grade separation (overpass) of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) mainline tracks as part of the Walters Road Extension; improvements at the Leisure Town Road crossings of Alamo Creek and New Alamo Creek; a new crossing of McCoy Creek; bicycle and pedestrian paths; landscaping; and utilities relocation. Depending on funding, the project would be constructed by segment until completion beginning in 2013. Assuming availability of funding, project construction would last 12 to 24 months on each segment, over a total duration of 48 to 60 months. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would meet the objectives of the regional Jepson Parkway Concept Plan, including safety improvements at various locations and along various road segments; relief from existing and anticipated traffic congestion on north-south routes in Solano County; and improved and new transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development for the preferred alternative would convert 75.4 acres of farmland and relocate 10 commercial enterprises and two community facilities. Habitat losses would include 3.5 acres of riparian woodland, 19 native oak trees, and 4.8 acres of wetlands. Impacts would affect three acres of habitat for the endangered Contra Costa goldfields wildflower, 22.7 acres of habitat for the California tiger salamander, and 57.4 acres of nesting and foraging habitat for Swainson's hawk. The roadway improvements would traverse 100-year floodplains. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards for sensitive receptor sites along Walters Road and Leisure Town Road. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0333D, Volume 32, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110152, Final EIS--510 pages and maps, Appendices--180 pages, Responses to Comments--180 pages, May 20, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Birds KW - Drainage KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Transportation KW - California 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/873130164?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JEPSON+PARKWAY+PROJECT%2C+SOLANO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=JEPSON+PARKWAY+PROJECT%2C+SOLANO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - California Department of Transportation, Oakland, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 20, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JEPSON PARKWAY PROJECT, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 13] T2 - JEPSON PARKWAY PROJECT, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130145; 14913-2_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of 12 miles of roadway infrastructure in Solano County, California is proposed. The 12-mile corridor, referred to as the Jepson Corridor, is located within the jurisdictions of the cities of Suisun City, Fairfield, and Vacaville, and unincorporated portions of central Solano County. The Jepson Parkway project would upgrade and link a series of existing local two- and four-lane roadways (as well as construct an extension of an existing roadway under one alternative) to provide a four- to six-lane north-south travel route for motorists who face increasing congestion when traveling between jurisdictions in central Solano County. The parkway improvements would extend from the intersection of Orange Drive and Leisure Town Road in Vacaville on the north to State Route (SR) 12/Walters Road in Suisun City in the south. Five alternatives, including a No Project Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, a four-lane divided arterial would be provided for the entire length of the corridor including improvements to Leisure Town Road, Vanden Road, Cement Hill Road, and Walters Road. Project components would include: the widening of existing roadways along the alternative; construction of a northern extension of Walters Road between Cement Hill Road and the intersection of Air Base Parkway; a grade separation (overpass) of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) mainline tracks as part of the Walters Road Extension; improvements at the Leisure Town Road crossings of Alamo Creek and New Alamo Creek; a new crossing of McCoy Creek; bicycle and pedestrian paths; landscaping; and utilities relocation. Depending on funding, the project would be constructed by segment until completion beginning in 2013. Assuming availability of funding, project construction would last 12 to 24 months on each segment, over a total duration of 48 to 60 months. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would meet the objectives of the regional Jepson Parkway Concept Plan, including safety improvements at various locations and along various road segments; relief from existing and anticipated traffic congestion on north-south routes in Solano County; and improved and new transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development for the preferred alternative would convert 75.4 acres of farmland and relocate 10 commercial enterprises and two community facilities. Habitat losses would include 3.5 acres of riparian woodland, 19 native oak trees, and 4.8 acres of wetlands. Impacts would affect three acres of habitat for the endangered Contra Costa goldfields wildflower, 22.7 acres of habitat for the California tiger salamander, and 57.4 acres of nesting and foraging habitat for Swainson's hawk. The roadway improvements would traverse 100-year floodplains. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards for sensitive receptor sites along Walters Road and Leisure Town Road. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0333D, Volume 32, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110152, Final EIS--510 pages and maps, Appendices--180 pages, Responses to Comments--180 pages, May 20, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Birds KW - Drainage KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Transportation KW - California 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/873130145?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JEPSON+PARKWAY+PROJECT%2C+SOLANO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=JEPSON+PARKWAY+PROJECT%2C+SOLANO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - California Department of Transportation, Oakland, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 20, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JEPSON PARKWAY PROJECT, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 13] T2 - JEPSON PARKWAY PROJECT, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130131; 14913-2_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of 12 miles of roadway infrastructure in Solano County, California is proposed. The 12-mile corridor, referred to as the Jepson Corridor, is located within the jurisdictions of the cities of Suisun City, Fairfield, and Vacaville, and unincorporated portions of central Solano County. The Jepson Parkway project would upgrade and link a series of existing local two- and four-lane roadways (as well as construct an extension of an existing roadway under one alternative) to provide a four- to six-lane north-south travel route for motorists who face increasing congestion when traveling between jurisdictions in central Solano County. The parkway improvements would extend from the intersection of Orange Drive and Leisure Town Road in Vacaville on the north to State Route (SR) 12/Walters Road in Suisun City in the south. Five alternatives, including a No Project Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, a four-lane divided arterial would be provided for the entire length of the corridor including improvements to Leisure Town Road, Vanden Road, Cement Hill Road, and Walters Road. Project components would include: the widening of existing roadways along the alternative; construction of a northern extension of Walters Road between Cement Hill Road and the intersection of Air Base Parkway; a grade separation (overpass) of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) mainline tracks as part of the Walters Road Extension; improvements at the Leisure Town Road crossings of Alamo Creek and New Alamo Creek; a new crossing of McCoy Creek; bicycle and pedestrian paths; landscaping; and utilities relocation. Depending on funding, the project would be constructed by segment until completion beginning in 2013. Assuming availability of funding, project construction would last 12 to 24 months on each segment, over a total duration of 48 to 60 months. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would meet the objectives of the regional Jepson Parkway Concept Plan, including safety improvements at various locations and along various road segments; relief from existing and anticipated traffic congestion on north-south routes in Solano County; and improved and new transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development for the preferred alternative would convert 75.4 acres of farmland and relocate 10 commercial enterprises and two community facilities. Habitat losses would include 3.5 acres of riparian woodland, 19 native oak trees, and 4.8 acres of wetlands. Impacts would affect three acres of habitat for the endangered Contra Costa goldfields wildflower, 22.7 acres of habitat for the California tiger salamander, and 57.4 acres of nesting and foraging habitat for Swainson's hawk. The roadway improvements would traverse 100-year floodplains. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards for sensitive receptor sites along Walters Road and Leisure Town Road. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0333D, Volume 32, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110152, Final EIS--510 pages and maps, Appendices--180 pages, Responses to Comments--180 pages, May 20, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Birds KW - Drainage KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Transportation KW - California 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/873130131?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JEPSON+PARKWAY+PROJECT%2C+SOLANO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=JEPSON+PARKWAY+PROJECT%2C+SOLANO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - California Department of Transportation, Oakland, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 20, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JEPSON PARKWAY PROJECT, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 13] T2 - JEPSON PARKWAY PROJECT, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130116; 14913-2_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of 12 miles of roadway infrastructure in Solano County, California is proposed. The 12-mile corridor, referred to as the Jepson Corridor, is located within the jurisdictions of the cities of Suisun City, Fairfield, and Vacaville, and unincorporated portions of central Solano County. The Jepson Parkway project would upgrade and link a series of existing local two- and four-lane roadways (as well as construct an extension of an existing roadway under one alternative) to provide a four- to six-lane north-south travel route for motorists who face increasing congestion when traveling between jurisdictions in central Solano County. The parkway improvements would extend from the intersection of Orange Drive and Leisure Town Road in Vacaville on the north to State Route (SR) 12/Walters Road in Suisun City in the south. Five alternatives, including a No Project Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, a four-lane divided arterial would be provided for the entire length of the corridor including improvements to Leisure Town Road, Vanden Road, Cement Hill Road, and Walters Road. Project components would include: the widening of existing roadways along the alternative; construction of a northern extension of Walters Road between Cement Hill Road and the intersection of Air Base Parkway; a grade separation (overpass) of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) mainline tracks as part of the Walters Road Extension; improvements at the Leisure Town Road crossings of Alamo Creek and New Alamo Creek; a new crossing of McCoy Creek; bicycle and pedestrian paths; landscaping; and utilities relocation. Depending on funding, the project would be constructed by segment until completion beginning in 2013. Assuming availability of funding, project construction would last 12 to 24 months on each segment, over a total duration of 48 to 60 months. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would meet the objectives of the regional Jepson Parkway Concept Plan, including safety improvements at various locations and along various road segments; relief from existing and anticipated traffic congestion on north-south routes in Solano County; and improved and new transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development for the preferred alternative would convert 75.4 acres of farmland and relocate 10 commercial enterprises and two community facilities. Habitat losses would include 3.5 acres of riparian woodland, 19 native oak trees, and 4.8 acres of wetlands. Impacts would affect three acres of habitat for the endangered Contra Costa goldfields wildflower, 22.7 acres of habitat for the California tiger salamander, and 57.4 acres of nesting and foraging habitat for Swainson's hawk. The roadway improvements would traverse 100-year floodplains. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards for sensitive receptor sites along Walters Road and Leisure Town Road. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0333D, Volume 32, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110152, Final EIS--510 pages and maps, Appendices--180 pages, Responses to Comments--180 pages, May 20, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Birds KW - Drainage KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Transportation KW - California 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/873130116?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JEPSON+PARKWAY+PROJECT%2C+SOLANO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=JEPSON+PARKWAY+PROJECT%2C+SOLANO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - California Department of Transportation, Oakland, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 20, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JEPSON PARKWAY PROJECT, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 13] T2 - JEPSON PARKWAY PROJECT, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130090; 14913-2_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of 12 miles of roadway infrastructure in Solano County, California is proposed. The 12-mile corridor, referred to as the Jepson Corridor, is located within the jurisdictions of the cities of Suisun City, Fairfield, and Vacaville, and unincorporated portions of central Solano County. The Jepson Parkway project would upgrade and link a series of existing local two- and four-lane roadways (as well as construct an extension of an existing roadway under one alternative) to provide a four- to six-lane north-south travel route for motorists who face increasing congestion when traveling between jurisdictions in central Solano County. The parkway improvements would extend from the intersection of Orange Drive and Leisure Town Road in Vacaville on the north to State Route (SR) 12/Walters Road in Suisun City in the south. Five alternatives, including a No Project Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, a four-lane divided arterial would be provided for the entire length of the corridor including improvements to Leisure Town Road, Vanden Road, Cement Hill Road, and Walters Road. Project components would include: the widening of existing roadways along the alternative; construction of a northern extension of Walters Road between Cement Hill Road and the intersection of Air Base Parkway; a grade separation (overpass) of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) mainline tracks as part of the Walters Road Extension; improvements at the Leisure Town Road crossings of Alamo Creek and New Alamo Creek; a new crossing of McCoy Creek; bicycle and pedestrian paths; landscaping; and utilities relocation. Depending on funding, the project would be constructed by segment until completion beginning in 2013. Assuming availability of funding, project construction would last 12 to 24 months on each segment, over a total duration of 48 to 60 months. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would meet the objectives of the regional Jepson Parkway Concept Plan, including safety improvements at various locations and along various road segments; relief from existing and anticipated traffic congestion on north-south routes in Solano County; and improved and new transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development for the preferred alternative would convert 75.4 acres of farmland and relocate 10 commercial enterprises and two community facilities. Habitat losses would include 3.5 acres of riparian woodland, 19 native oak trees, and 4.8 acres of wetlands. Impacts would affect three acres of habitat for the endangered Contra Costa goldfields wildflower, 22.7 acres of habitat for the California tiger salamander, and 57.4 acres of nesting and foraging habitat for Swainson's hawk. The roadway improvements would traverse 100-year floodplains. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards for sensitive receptor sites along Walters Road and Leisure Town Road. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0333D, Volume 32, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110152, Final EIS--510 pages and maps, Appendices--180 pages, Responses to Comments--180 pages, May 20, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Birds KW - Drainage KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Transportation KW - California 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/873130090?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JEPSON+PARKWAY+PROJECT%2C+SOLANO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=JEPSON+PARKWAY+PROJECT%2C+SOLANO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - California Department of Transportation, Oakland, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 20, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RUSK PERMIT AREA, RUSK, PANOLA, AND HARRISON COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - RUSK PERMIT AREA, RUSK, PANOLA, AND HARRISON COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 873129926; 14909-8_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the South Hallsville No.1 Mine, an open-pit lignite mine located in Harrison County, Texas is proposed. The new 20,377-acre Rusk Permit Area is located south of the existing mine and across the Sabine River into Rusk and Panola counties. The existing South Hallsville No. 1 Mine is nearing the limit on lignite reserves that can be safely and economically recovered. The Sabine Mining Company (Sabine), a wholly owned subsidiary of North American Coal Corporation, proposes to develop sequential mine pits through the removal of soil and rock in order to reach and extract the lignite seams that occur at depths of 30 to 180 feet below the surface. An average of 4.0 million tons of lignite would be mined per year. The lignite would be trucked to an existing central blending facility located at American Electric Power/Southwestern Electric Power Companys (SWEPCOs) Henry W. Pirkey Unit No. 1 (Pirkey) Power Plant, located six miles north of the proposed Rusk Permit Area. A transportation corridor would be constructed across the Sabine River, including a haul road, bridge, and dragline walkway. Other project components would include access roads, sediment control ponds, a 138-kilovolt transmission line, temporary lignite storage areas, non-lignite storage areas, a truck fueling/parking area, and dewatering wells. Several existing county roads, farm-to-market roads, state highways, oil and gas facilities, and utility lines would be relocated or temporarily closed. SWEPCO has contracted with Sabine to mine the lignite reserves and currently owns or has leased 50 percent of the Rusk Permit Area; most of the remainder is in small private ownership parcels that would be purchased or leased. Sabine or SWEPCO would obtain the rights-of-entry, and Sabine would obtain all required permits, prior to mining. Mining operations would be conducted 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. Impacts would be minimized by limiting surface disturbance in mine areas to a maximum of 500 acres at one time, through implementation of the proposed reclamation program, and through implementation of Sabines proposed conceptual mitigation plan. In addition to the proposed action, this abbreviated final EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed expansion would provide a long-term, reliable, and economically stable fuel source to SWEPCOs Pirkey Power Plant which requires four million tons of lignite per year in order to generate 650 megawatts of baseload electricity for its customers. The Proposed Action would continue direct employment for the existing 260 workers at the South Marshall Permit Area of the South Hallsville No. 1 Mine; it would add 150 contract workers for 1 to 1.5 years of construction and 40 contract operations workers for the life of the mine for the Rusk Permit Area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Incremental surface disturbance of up to 14,392 acres would affect vegetation, aquatic resources, and wildlife habitat and result in the loss of 126 identified archaeological sites and historic resources. Construction and operation would impact 303.1 acres of waters of the United States, including forested wetlands, non-forested wetlands, streams, and ponds. Construction of the transportation corridor would release sediments and organic matter into the Sabine River and would impact three state-listed mussel species. Short-term, incremental loss of habitat for the state-listed bald eagle could occur. Current residents in an estimated 256 dwellings within the Rusk Permit Area would be displaced for the duration of disturbance and reclamation in their areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0347D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110148, 240 pages, May 20, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Coal KW - Creeks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Noise KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Shellfish KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Storage KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Sabine River KW - Texas 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/873129926?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RUSK+PERMIT+AREA%2C+RUSK%2C+PANOLA%2C+AND+HARRISON+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=RUSK+PERMIT+AREA%2C+RUSK%2C+PANOLA%2C+AND+HARRISON+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth, Texas; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 20, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNIT 3, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSE, CALVERT COUNTY, MARYLAND. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNIT 3, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSE, CALVERT COUNTY, MARYLAND. AN - 873128004; 14918-7_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a combined operating license (COL) for the construction and operation of a new nuclear power reactor unit at the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant (CCNPP) site in Calvert County, Maryland is proposed. Calvert Cliffs 3 Nuclear Project, LLC and UniStar Nuclear Operating Services, LLC (collectively referred to as UniStar) applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for the license to locate the proposed CCNPP Unit 3 on a site near Lusby. The 2,070-acre site on the Calvert Peninsula is situated on the western shore of the Chesapeake Bay, 40 miles southeast of Washington, D.C. The existing two pressurized water reactors (PWRs), associated facilities, a barge slip, and onsite transmission lines occupy 331 acres. The location for proposed Unit 3 is south of CCNPP Units 1 and 2, in the vicinity of the former Camp Conoy. Unit 3 would have a separate protected area and plant access road. The Unit 3 reactor building would be surrounded by the fuel pool building, four safeguard buildings, two emergency diesel generator buildings, the reactor auxiliary building, the radioactive waste processing building, and the access building. The vent stack for Unit 3 would be the tallest new structure at approximately 211 feet above grade or about seven feet above the reactor building. Unlike existing CCNPP Units 1 and 2, which use once-through cooling systems, the Unit 3 design would consist of a closed-cycle cooling system with a single, circular, mechanical draft cooling tower. At an approximate height of 164 feet, this 528-foot diameter tower (at the base) would be the second largest structure on the site and is to be outfitted with plume abatement to minimize visible water vapor plume. Unit 3 buildings would be constructed of concrete. UniStar would utilize the Areva NP Inc. Evolutionary Power Reactor design and the proposed four-loop PWR is rated at 4,590 megawatts (MW) thermal, with a design gross-electrical output of 1,710 MW electrical and a net output of 1,562 MW electrical. During accidents, makeup water for the essential service water system would be supplied from the Chesapeake Bay through a ultimate heat sink intake structure. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this final EIS considers energy source alternatives, building and operation of new reactors at alternative sites, and system design alternatives. The NRC staffs recommendation is that the COL be issued as requested. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide additional large baseload electrical generation capacity within Maryland and avoid rolling blackouts projected to occur as soon as 2011. The employment of a large workforce for up to 86 months would have positive economic impacts on the surrounding region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would disturb 460 acres and convert 320 acres to structures, pavement, or intensively maintained ground. Permanent disturbance would include 7.9 acres of forested nontidal wetlands, 1.2 acres of emergent nontidal wetlands, 2.6 acres of nontidal open water, 8,350 feet of streambed, and 5.7 acres of tidal open waters. Several surface water bodies and some of the aquifers underlying the site would be impacted. Land clearing would result in lost or decreased habitat for migratory birds. Dredging and the building of the intake and discharge structures would affect aquatic resources in Chesapeake Bay. 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). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0044D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110157, Volume 1--879 pages, Volume 2--563 pages, May 20, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: NUREG-1936 KW - Bays KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cooling Systems KW - Dredging KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Nuclear Reactors KW - Pressurized Water Reactors KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Regulations KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Chesapeake Bay KW - Maryland 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/873128004?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALVERT+CLIFFS+NUCLEAR+POWER+PLANT+UNIT+3%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSE%2C+CALVERT+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=CALVERT+CLIFFS+NUCLEAR+POWER+PLANT+UNIT+3%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSE%2C+CALVERT+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&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 - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 20, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COMANCHE PEAK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNITS 3 AND 4, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSES, HOOD AND SOMERVELL COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - COMANCHE PEAK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNITS 3 AND 4, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSES, HOOD AND SOMERVELL COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 873127723; 14917-6_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of combined operating licenses (COLs) for the construction and operation of two new nuclear power reactor units at the Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant (CPNPP) site in Hood and Somervell counties, Texas is proposed. Luminant Generation Company LLC, acting for itself and as agent for Nuclear Project Company LLC (subsequently renamed Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Company LLC), submitted an application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on September 19, 2008 for the proposed CPNPP Units 3 and 4 which would be located adjacent to the existing Units 1 and 2. The CPNPP, which is situated 40 miles southwest of Fort Worth and five miles north of Glen Rose, currently consists of two Westinghouse pressurized-water reactor units, a turbine building, a switchyard, water intake and discharge structures, and support buildings. A radioactive waste disposal system and a fuel-handling system are located on the site. Squaw Creek Reservoir serves as the source of cooling water for Units 1 and 2. The proposed CPNPP Units 3 and 4 would utilize Mitsubishi Heavy Industries U.S. Advanced Pressurized-Water Reactor units, each having a rated and design core power level of 4,451 megawatts (MW) thermal and a rated and design net output of 1,600 MW electrical. The units would use enriched uranium dioxide fuel. Wet mechanical draft cooling towers are proposed for Units 3 and 4. Water would be supplied from a new intake structure on Lake Granbury through two new pipelines. A new blowdown water treatment facility and evaporation pond would be constructed south of Units 1 and 2 and two new pipelines would be built for discharge of treated blowdown water to Lake Granbury. Up to four new transmission lines would be built, including two added to existing towers and two built on new towers in new rights-of-way. A new sanitary waste treatment plant with a 100,000-gallon-per-day capacity would be installed and would be used to dewater sanitary waste sludge from all four units. Commercial electric generation is expected to begin in 2017 for CPNPP Unit 3 and in 2018 for Unit 4. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this final EIS considers alternative reactor sites and mitigation measures for reducing adverse impacts. The NRC staffs recommendation is that the COLs be issued as requested. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide additional baseload electrical generation capacity within the service areas of Luminant Generation Company. Significant employment and income benefits would accrue to Somervell and Hood counties. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the new units would disturb 675 acres of land, permanently convert 161 acres of prime farmland, and result in permanent loss of 445 acres of terrestrial habitat. Installation of a water intake structure could lead to a temporary increase in turbidity in Lake Granbury. Proposed transmission lines and pipelines could sever tracts of public and private property and one corridor could pass on or close to Dinosaur Valley State Park with potential to impact black-capped vireo and golden-cheeked warbler. Withdrawal of water from Lake Granbury would result in lower water levels in the lake with potential impacts to aquatic resources and decreased flows in the Brazos River. Cooling system operation would impact shoreline vegetation. 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). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0279D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110156, Volume 1--729 pages, Volume 2--383 pages, May 20, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: NUREG-1943 KW - Cooling Systems KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Lakes KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Nuclear Reactors KW - Pipelines KW - Pressurized Water Reactors KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Regulations KW - Reservoirs KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Lake Granbury KW - Texas 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/873127723?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COMANCHE+PEAK+NUCLEAR+POWER+PLANT+UNITS+3+AND+4%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSES%2C+HOOD+AND+SOMERVELL+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=COMANCHE+PEAK+NUCLEAR+POWER+PLANT+UNITS+3+AND+4%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSES%2C+HOOD+AND+SOMERVELL+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&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 - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 20, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COMANCHE PEAK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNITS 3 AND 4, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSES, HOOD AND SOMERVELL COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - COMANCHE PEAK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNITS 3 AND 4, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSES, HOOD AND SOMERVELL COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 873127580; 14917-6_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of combined operating licenses (COLs) for the construction and operation of two new nuclear power reactor units at the Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant (CPNPP) site in Hood and Somervell counties, Texas is proposed. Luminant Generation Company LLC, acting for itself and as agent for Nuclear Project Company LLC (subsequently renamed Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Company LLC), submitted an application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on September 19, 2008 for the proposed CPNPP Units 3 and 4 which would be located adjacent to the existing Units 1 and 2. The CPNPP, which is situated 40 miles southwest of Fort Worth and five miles north of Glen Rose, currently consists of two Westinghouse pressurized-water reactor units, a turbine building, a switchyard, water intake and discharge structures, and support buildings. A radioactive waste disposal system and a fuel-handling system are located on the site. Squaw Creek Reservoir serves as the source of cooling water for Units 1 and 2. The proposed CPNPP Units 3 and 4 would utilize Mitsubishi Heavy Industries U.S. Advanced Pressurized-Water Reactor units, each having a rated and design core power level of 4,451 megawatts (MW) thermal and a rated and design net output of 1,600 MW electrical. The units would use enriched uranium dioxide fuel. Wet mechanical draft cooling towers are proposed for Units 3 and 4. Water would be supplied from a new intake structure on Lake Granbury through two new pipelines. A new blowdown water treatment facility and evaporation pond would be constructed south of Units 1 and 2 and two new pipelines would be built for discharge of treated blowdown water to Lake Granbury. Up to four new transmission lines would be built, including two added to existing towers and two built on new towers in new rights-of-way. A new sanitary waste treatment plant with a 100,000-gallon-per-day capacity would be installed and would be used to dewater sanitary waste sludge from all four units. Commercial electric generation is expected to begin in 2017 for CPNPP Unit 3 and in 2018 for Unit 4. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this final EIS considers alternative reactor sites and mitigation measures for reducing adverse impacts. The NRC staffs recommendation is that the COLs be issued as requested. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide additional baseload electrical generation capacity within the service areas of Luminant Generation Company. Significant employment and income benefits would accrue to Somervell and Hood counties. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the new units would disturb 675 acres of land, permanently convert 161 acres of prime farmland, and result in permanent loss of 445 acres of terrestrial habitat. Installation of a water intake structure could lead to a temporary increase in turbidity in Lake Granbury. Proposed transmission lines and pipelines could sever tracts of public and private property and one corridor could pass on or close to Dinosaur Valley State Park with potential to impact black-capped vireo and golden-cheeked warbler. Withdrawal of water from Lake Granbury would result in lower water levels in the lake with potential impacts to aquatic resources and decreased flows in the Brazos River. Cooling system operation would impact shoreline vegetation. 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). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0279D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110156, Volume 1--729 pages, Volume 2--383 pages, May 20, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: NUREG-1943 KW - Cooling Systems KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Lakes KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Nuclear Reactors KW - Pipelines KW - Pressurized Water Reactors KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Regulations KW - Reservoirs KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Lake Granbury KW - Texas 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/873127580?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COMANCHE+PEAK+NUCLEAR+POWER+PLANT+UNITS+3+AND+4%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSES%2C+HOOD+AND+SOMERVELL+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=COMANCHE+PEAK+NUCLEAR+POWER+PLANT+UNITS+3+AND+4%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSES%2C+HOOD+AND+SOMERVELL+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&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 - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 20, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNIT 3, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSE, CALVERT COUNTY, MARYLAND. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNIT 3, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSE, CALVERT COUNTY, MARYLAND. AN - 873127556; 14918-7_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a combined operating license (COL) for the construction and operation of a new nuclear power reactor unit at the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant (CCNPP) site in Calvert County, Maryland is proposed. Calvert Cliffs 3 Nuclear Project, LLC and UniStar Nuclear Operating Services, LLC (collectively referred to as UniStar) applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for the license to locate the proposed CCNPP Unit 3 on a site near Lusby. The 2,070-acre site on the Calvert Peninsula is situated on the western shore of the Chesapeake Bay, 40 miles southeast of Washington, D.C. The existing two pressurized water reactors (PWRs), associated facilities, a barge slip, and onsite transmission lines occupy 331 acres. The location for proposed Unit 3 is south of CCNPP Units 1 and 2, in the vicinity of the former Camp Conoy. Unit 3 would have a separate protected area and plant access road. The Unit 3 reactor building would be surrounded by the fuel pool building, four safeguard buildings, two emergency diesel generator buildings, the reactor auxiliary building, the radioactive waste processing building, and the access building. The vent stack for Unit 3 would be the tallest new structure at approximately 211 feet above grade or about seven feet above the reactor building. Unlike existing CCNPP Units 1 and 2, which use once-through cooling systems, the Unit 3 design would consist of a closed-cycle cooling system with a single, circular, mechanical draft cooling tower. At an approximate height of 164 feet, this 528-foot diameter tower (at the base) would be the second largest structure on the site and is to be outfitted with plume abatement to minimize visible water vapor plume. Unit 3 buildings would be constructed of concrete. UniStar would utilize the Areva NP Inc. Evolutionary Power Reactor design and the proposed four-loop PWR is rated at 4,590 megawatts (MW) thermal, with a design gross-electrical output of 1,710 MW electrical and a net output of 1,562 MW electrical. During accidents, makeup water for the essential service water system would be supplied from the Chesapeake Bay through a ultimate heat sink intake structure. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this final EIS considers energy source alternatives, building and operation of new reactors at alternative sites, and system design alternatives. The NRC staffs recommendation is that the COL be issued as requested. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide additional large baseload electrical generation capacity within Maryland and avoid rolling blackouts projected to occur as soon as 2011. The employment of a large workforce for up to 86 months would have positive economic impacts on the surrounding region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would disturb 460 acres and convert 320 acres to structures, pavement, or intensively maintained ground. Permanent disturbance would include 7.9 acres of forested nontidal wetlands, 1.2 acres of emergent nontidal wetlands, 2.6 acres of nontidal open water, 8,350 feet of streambed, and 5.7 acres of tidal open waters. Several surface water bodies and some of the aquifers underlying the site would be impacted. Land clearing would result in lost or decreased habitat for migratory birds. Dredging and the building of the intake and discharge structures would affect aquatic resources in Chesapeake Bay. 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). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0044D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110157, Volume 1--879 pages, Volume 2--563 pages, May 20, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: NUREG-1936 KW - Bays KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cooling Systems KW - Dredging KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Nuclear Reactors KW - Pressurized Water Reactors KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Regulations KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Chesapeake Bay KW - Maryland 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/873127556?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALVERT+CLIFFS+NUCLEAR+POWER+PLANT+UNIT+3%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSE%2C+CALVERT+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=CALVERT+CLIFFS+NUCLEAR+POWER+PLANT+UNIT+3%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSE%2C+CALVERT+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&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 - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 20, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JEPSON PARKWAY PROJECT, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 871765673; 14913 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of 12 miles of roadway infrastructure in Solano County, California is proposed. The 12-mile corridor, referred to as the Jepson Corridor, is located within the jurisdictions of the cities of Suisun City, Fairfield, and Vacaville, and unincorporated portions of central Solano County. The Jepson Parkway project would upgrade and link a series of existing local two- and four-lane roadways (as well as construct an extension of an existing roadway under one alternative) to provide a four- to six-lane north-south travel route for motorists who face increasing congestion when traveling between jurisdictions in central Solano County. The parkway improvements would extend from the intersection of Orange Drive and Leisure Town Road in Vacaville on the north to State Route (SR) 12/Walters Road in Suisun City in the south. Five alternatives, including a No Project Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, a four-lane divided arterial would be provided for the entire length of the corridor including improvements to Leisure Town Road, Vanden Road, Cement Hill Road, and Walters Road. Project components would include: the widening of existing roadways along the alternative; construction of a northern extension of Walters Road between Cement Hill Road and the intersection of Air Base Parkway; a grade separation (overpass) of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) mainline tracks as part of the Walters Road Extension; improvements at the Leisure Town Road crossings of Alamo Creek and New Alamo Creek; a new crossing of McCoy Creek; bicycle and pedestrian paths; landscaping; and utilities relocation. Depending on funding, the project would be constructed by segment until completion beginning in 2013. Assuming availability of funding, project construction would last 12 to 24 months on each segment, over a total duration of 48 to 60 months. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would meet the objectives of the regional Jepson Parkway Concept Plan, including safety improvements at various locations and along various road segments; relief from existing and anticipated traffic congestion on north-south routes in Solano County; and improved and new transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development for the preferred alternative would convert 75.4 acres of farmland and relocate 10 commercial enterprises and two community facilities. Habitat losses would include 3.5 acres of riparian woodland, 19 native oak trees, and 4.8 acres of wetlands. Impacts would affect three acres of habitat for the endangered Contra Costa goldfields wildflower, 22.7 acres of habitat for the California tiger salamander, and 57.4 acres of nesting and foraging habitat for Swainson's hawk. The roadway improvements would traverse 100-year floodplains. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards for sensitive receptor sites along Walters Road and Leisure Town Road. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0333D, Volume 32, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110152, Final EIS--510 pages and maps, Appendices--180 pages, Responses to Comments--180 pages, May 20, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Birds KW - Drainage KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Transportation KW - California 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/871765673?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JEPSON+PARKWAY+PROJECT%2C+SOLANO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=JEPSON+PARKWAY+PROJECT%2C+SOLANO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - California Department of Transportation, Oakland, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 20, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - The effect of phosphate application on the mobility of antimony in firing range soils AN - 1770297386; 14882688 AB - Chemical and biogenic sources of phosphate are commonly accepted in situ treatment methods for immobilization of lead (Pb) in soil. The metalloid antimony (Sb), commonly associated with Pb in the environment, exists as either a neutral species or a negatively charged oxyanion. Antimony is used in the manufacture of bullets as a hardening agent, constituting approximately 3% of the bullet mass. Technological solutions to reduce the migration of metals from small arms firing range (SAFR) soils for environmental compliance purposes must be robust with respect to multi-component systems containing both cationic and anionic contaminants. The effect of varying physico-chemical soil properties on Sb mobility post-firing was assessed in this study for six soil types using common analytical protocols and methods related to regulatory criteria. The sands (SM and SP) demonstrated the greatest Sb solubility in post-firing leachate samples and therefore were selected to evaluate the effects of five commercially available stabilization amendments on Sb mobility. Enhanced Sb leaching was experimentally confirmed in the phosphate-treated soils compared to both the untreated control soil and the sulfur-based amendment, and thus suggests competition for negative sorption sites between Sb and phosphate. However, the 5% Buffer BlockARG calcium phosphate amendment did not exhibit the same enhanced Sb release. This can be attributed to the inclusion of aluminum hydroxide in the amendment composition. Technologies are needed that will adequately immobilize Pb without mobilizing oxyanions such as Sb. Further research will be required to elucidate binding mechanisms and redox conditions that govern the mobility of Sb on SAFRs. JF - Science of the Total Environment AU - Griggs, Christopher S AU - Martin, WAndy AU - Larson, Steven L AU - O'Connnor, Greg AU - Fabian, Gene AU - Zynda, Greg AU - Mackie, David AD - U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Environmental Laboratory, Vicksburg, MS, USA Y1 - 2011/05/15/ PY - 2011 DA - 2011 May 15 SP - 2397 EP - 2403 PB - Elsevier Science, P.O. Box 211 Amsterdam 1000 AE Netherlands VL - 409 IS - 12 SN - 0048-9697, 0048-9697 KW - Environmental Engineering Abstracts (EN); CSA / ASCE Civil Engineering Abstracts (CE); Aluminium Industry Abstracts (AI) KW - Phosphates KW - Firing KW - Soils KW - Antimony KW - Inclusions KW - Bullets KW - Lead (metal) KW - Projectiles UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1770297386?accountid=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=Science+of+the+Total+Environment&rft.atitle=The+effect+of+phosphate+application+on+the+mobility+of+antimony+in+firing+range+soils&rft.au=Griggs%2C+Christopher+S%3BMartin%2C+WAndy%3BLarson%2C+Steven+L%3BO%27Connnor%2C+Greg%3BFabian%2C+Gene%3BZynda%2C+Greg%3BMackie%2C+David&rft.aulast=Griggs&rft.aufirst=Christopher&rft.date=2011-05-15&rft.volume=409&rft.issue=12&rft.spage=2397&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Science+of+the+Total+Environment&rft.issn=00489697&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.scitotenv.2011.02.043 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - Number of references - 4 N1 - Last updated - 2016-05-18 DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.02.043 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Conserved toxic responses across phylogenetic divergent lineages: a meta-analysis of the neurotoxic effects of RDX among multiple species using toxicogenomics T2 - 21st Annual Meeting of the Europe branch of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC 2011) AN - 1312983901; 6086900 JF - 21st Annual Meeting of the Europe branch of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC 2011) AU - Habib, Tanwir AU - Garcia-Reyero, Natalia AU - Pirooznia, Mehdi AU - Gust, Kurt AU - Gong, Ping AU - Warner, Chris AU - Wilbanks, Mitchell AU - Perkins, Edward Y1 - 2011/05/15/ PY - 2011 DA - 2011 May 15 KW - Neurotoxicity KW - Reviews KW - Phylogenetics UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1312983901?accountid=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+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Europe+branch+of+the+Society+of+Environmental+Toxicology+and+Chemistry+%28SETAC+2011%29&rft.atitle=Conserved+toxic+responses+across+phylogenetic+divergent+lineages%3A+a+meta-analysis+of+the+neurotoxic+effects+of+RDX+among+multiple+species+using+toxicogenomics&rft.au=Habib%2C+Tanwir%3BGarcia-Reyero%2C+Natalia%3BPirooznia%2C+Mehdi%3BGust%2C+Kurt%3BGong%2C+Ping%3BWarner%2C+Chris%3BWilbanks%2C+Mitchell%3BPerkins%2C+Edward&rft.aulast=Habib&rft.aufirst=Tanwir&rft.date=2011-05-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=21st+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Europe+branch+of+the+Society+of+Environmental+Toxicology+and+Chemistry+%28SETAC+2011%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://milano.setac.eu/scientific_programme/?contentid=297&pr_id=290 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2013-02-26 N1 - Last updated - 2013-02-28 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). [Part 39 of 57] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). AN - 873131627; 14894-8_0039 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. This supplemental draft EIS includes additional analyses to identify ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. 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 approximately 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 $1.77 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 1.77. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action 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 would be nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All of the diversion channel alternatives could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River. The LPP could impact 998 acres of wetlands and significantly impact aquatic habitat connectivity on the Red and Wild Rice rivers. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation. Both the Minnesota and North Dakota alignments would require residential or farmstead relocations. The LPP 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: 110138, Supplemental Draft EIS--548 pages, Appendices, May 6, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 39 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Economic Assessments 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/873131627?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&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 - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 6, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). [Part 38 of 57] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). AN - 873131619; 14894-8_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. This supplemental draft EIS includes additional analyses to identify ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. 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 approximately 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 $1.77 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 1.77. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action 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 would be nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All of the diversion channel alternatives could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River. The LPP could impact 998 acres of wetlands and significantly impact aquatic habitat connectivity on the Red and Wild Rice rivers. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation. Both the Minnesota and North Dakota alignments would require residential or farmstead relocations. The LPP 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: 110138, Supplemental Draft EIS--548 pages, Appendices, May 6, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 38 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Economic Assessments 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/873131619?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&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 - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 6, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). [Part 37 of 57] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). AN - 873131602; 14894-8_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. This supplemental draft EIS includes additional analyses to identify ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. 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 approximately 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 $1.77 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 1.77. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action 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 would be nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All of the diversion channel alternatives could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River. The LPP could impact 998 acres of wetlands and significantly impact aquatic habitat connectivity on the Red and Wild Rice rivers. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation. Both the Minnesota and North Dakota alignments would require residential or farmstead relocations. The LPP 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: 110138, Supplemental Draft EIS--548 pages, Appendices, May 6, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 37 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Economic Assessments 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/873131602?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&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 - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 6, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). [Part 36 of 57] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). AN - 873131585; 14894-8_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. This supplemental draft EIS includes additional analyses to identify ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. 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 approximately 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 $1.77 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 1.77. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action 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 would be nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All of the diversion channel alternatives could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River. The LPP could impact 998 acres of wetlands and significantly impact aquatic habitat connectivity on the Red and Wild Rice rivers. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation. Both the Minnesota and North Dakota alignments would require residential or farmstead relocations. The LPP 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: 110138, Supplemental Draft EIS--548 pages, Appendices, May 6, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 36 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Economic Assessments 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/873131585?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&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 - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 6, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). [Part 35 of 57] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). AN - 873131568; 14894-8_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. This supplemental draft EIS includes additional analyses to identify ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. 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 approximately 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 $1.77 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 1.77. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action 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 would be nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All of the diversion channel alternatives could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River. The LPP could impact 998 acres of wetlands and significantly impact aquatic habitat connectivity on the Red and Wild Rice rivers. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation. Both the Minnesota and North Dakota alignments would require residential or farmstead relocations. The LPP 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: 110138, Supplemental Draft EIS--548 pages, Appendices, May 6, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 35 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Economic Assessments 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/873131568?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&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 - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 6, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). [Part 34 of 57] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). AN - 873131559; 14894-8_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. This supplemental draft EIS includes additional analyses to identify ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. 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 approximately 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 $1.77 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 1.77. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action 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 would be nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All of the diversion channel alternatives could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River. The LPP could impact 998 acres of wetlands and significantly impact aquatic habitat connectivity on the Red and Wild Rice rivers. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation. Both the Minnesota and North Dakota alignments would require residential or farmstead relocations. The LPP 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: 110138, Supplemental Draft EIS--548 pages, Appendices, May 6, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 34 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Economic Assessments 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/873131559?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&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 - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 6, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). [Part 33 of 57] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). AN - 873131548; 14894-8_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. This supplemental draft EIS includes additional analyses to identify ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. 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 approximately 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 $1.77 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 1.77. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action 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 would be nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All of the diversion channel alternatives could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River. The LPP could impact 998 acres of wetlands and significantly impact aquatic habitat connectivity on the Red and Wild Rice rivers. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation. Both the Minnesota and North Dakota alignments would require residential or farmstead relocations. The LPP 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: 110138, Supplemental Draft EIS--548 pages, Appendices, May 6, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 33 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Economic Assessments 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/873131548?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&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 - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 6, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). [Part 28 of 57] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). AN - 873131543; 14894-8_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. This supplemental draft EIS includes additional analyses to identify ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. 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 approximately 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 $1.77 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 1.77. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action 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 would be nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All of the diversion channel alternatives could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River. The LPP could impact 998 acres of wetlands and significantly impact aquatic habitat connectivity on the Red and Wild Rice rivers. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation. Both the Minnesota and North Dakota alignments would require residential or farmstead relocations. The LPP 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: 110138, Supplemental Draft EIS--548 pages, Appendices, May 6, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 28 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Economic Assessments 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/873131543?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&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 - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 6, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). [Part 27 of 57] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). AN - 873131533; 14894-8_0027 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. This supplemental draft EIS includes additional analyses to identify ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. 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 approximately 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 $1.77 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 1.77. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action 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 would be nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All of the diversion channel alternatives could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River. The LPP could impact 998 acres of wetlands and significantly impact aquatic habitat connectivity on the Red and Wild Rice rivers. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation. Both the Minnesota and North Dakota alignments would require residential or farmstead relocations. The LPP 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: 110138, Supplemental Draft EIS--548 pages, Appendices, May 6, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 27 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Economic Assessments 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/873131533?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&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 - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 6, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). [Part 26 of 57] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). AN - 873131527; 14894-8_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. This supplemental draft EIS includes additional analyses to identify ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. 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 approximately 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 $1.77 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 1.77. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action 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 would be nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All of the diversion channel alternatives could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River. The LPP could impact 998 acres of wetlands and significantly impact aquatic habitat connectivity on the Red and Wild Rice rivers. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation. Both the Minnesota and North Dakota alignments would require residential or farmstead relocations. The LPP 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: 110138, Supplemental Draft EIS--548 pages, Appendices, May 6, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 26 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Economic Assessments 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/873131527?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&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 - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 6, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). [Part 22 of 57] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). AN - 873131513; 14894-8_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. This supplemental draft EIS includes additional analyses to identify ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. 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 approximately 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 $1.77 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 1.77. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action 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 would be nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All of the diversion channel alternatives could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River. The LPP could impact 998 acres of wetlands and significantly impact aquatic habitat connectivity on the Red and Wild Rice rivers. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation. Both the Minnesota and North Dakota alignments would require residential or farmstead relocations. The LPP 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: 110138, Supplemental Draft EIS--548 pages, Appendices, May 6, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 22 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Economic Assessments 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/873131513?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&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 - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 6, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). [Part 21 of 57] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). AN - 873131505; 14894-8_0021 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. This supplemental draft EIS includes additional analyses to identify ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. 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 approximately 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 $1.77 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 1.77. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action 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 would be nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All of the diversion channel alternatives could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River. The LPP could impact 998 acres of wetlands and significantly impact aquatic habitat connectivity on the Red and Wild Rice rivers. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation. Both the Minnesota and North Dakota alignments would require residential or farmstead relocations. The LPP 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: 110138, Supplemental Draft EIS--548 pages, Appendices, May 6, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 21 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Economic Assessments 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/873131505?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&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 - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 6, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). [Part 20 of 57] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). AN - 873131491; 14894-8_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. This supplemental draft EIS includes additional analyses to identify ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. 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 approximately 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 $1.77 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 1.77. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action 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 would be nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All of the diversion channel alternatives could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River. The LPP could impact 998 acres of wetlands and significantly impact aquatic habitat connectivity on the Red and Wild Rice rivers. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation. Both the Minnesota and North Dakota alignments would require residential or farmstead relocations. The LPP 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: 110138, Supplemental Draft EIS--548 pages, Appendices, May 6, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 20 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Economic Assessments 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/873131491?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&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 - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 6, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). [Part 19 of 57] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). AN - 873131480; 14894-8_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. This supplemental draft EIS includes additional analyses to identify ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. 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 approximately 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 $1.77 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 1.77. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action 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 would be nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All of the diversion channel alternatives could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River. The LPP could impact 998 acres of wetlands and significantly impact aquatic habitat connectivity on the Red and Wild Rice rivers. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation. Both the Minnesota and North Dakota alignments would require residential or farmstead relocations. The LPP 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: 110138, Supplemental Draft EIS--548 pages, Appendices, May 6, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 19 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Economic Assessments 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/873131480?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&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 - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 6, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). [Part 18 of 57] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). AN - 873131468; 14894-8_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. This supplemental draft EIS includes additional analyses to identify ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. 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 approximately 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 $1.77 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 1.77. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action 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 would be nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All of the diversion channel alternatives could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River. The LPP could impact 998 acres of wetlands and significantly impact aquatic habitat connectivity on the Red and Wild Rice rivers. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation. Both the Minnesota and North Dakota alignments would require residential or farmstead relocations. The LPP 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: 110138, Supplemental Draft EIS--548 pages, Appendices, May 6, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 18 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Economic Assessments 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/873131468?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&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 - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 6, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). [Part 7 of 57] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). AN - 873131456; 14894-8_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. This supplemental draft EIS includes additional analyses to identify ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. 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 approximately 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 $1.77 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 1.77. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action 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 would be nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All of the diversion channel alternatives could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River. The LPP could impact 998 acres of wetlands and significantly impact aquatic habitat connectivity on the Red and Wild Rice rivers. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation. Both the Minnesota and North Dakota alignments would require residential or farmstead relocations. The LPP 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: 110138, Supplemental Draft EIS--548 pages, Appendices, May 6, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Economic Assessments 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/873131456?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&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 - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 6, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). [Part 6 of 57] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). AN - 873131448; 14894-8_0006 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. This supplemental draft EIS includes additional analyses to identify ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. 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 approximately 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 $1.77 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 1.77. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action 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 would be nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All of the diversion channel alternatives could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River. The LPP could impact 998 acres of wetlands and significantly impact aquatic habitat connectivity on the Red and Wild Rice rivers. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation. Both the Minnesota and North Dakota alignments would require residential or farmstead relocations. The LPP 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: 110138, Supplemental Draft EIS--548 pages, Appendices, May 6, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Economic Assessments 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/873131448?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&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 - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 6, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). [Part 5 of 57] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). AN - 873131435; 14894-8_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. This supplemental draft EIS includes additional analyses to identify ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. 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 approximately 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 $1.77 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 1.77. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action 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 would be nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All of the diversion channel alternatives could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River. The LPP could impact 998 acres of wetlands and significantly impact aquatic habitat connectivity on the Red and Wild Rice rivers. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation. Both the Minnesota and North Dakota alignments would require residential or farmstead relocations. The LPP 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: 110138, Supplemental Draft EIS--548 pages, Appendices, May 6, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Economic Assessments 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/873131435?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&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 - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 6, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). [Part 2 of 57] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). AN - 873131420; 14894-8_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. This supplemental draft EIS includes additional analyses to identify ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. 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 approximately 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 $1.77 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 1.77. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action 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 would be nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All of the diversion channel alternatives could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River. The LPP could impact 998 acres of wetlands and significantly impact aquatic habitat connectivity on the Red and Wild Rice rivers. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation. Both the Minnesota and North Dakota alignments would require residential or farmstead relocations. The LPP 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: 110138, Supplemental Draft EIS--548 pages, Appendices, May 6, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Economic Assessments 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/873131420?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&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 - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 6, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). [Part 1 of 57] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). AN - 873131402; 14894-8_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. This supplemental draft EIS includes additional analyses to identify ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. 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 approximately 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 $1.77 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 1.77. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action 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 would be nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All of the diversion channel alternatives could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River. The LPP could impact 998 acres of wetlands and significantly impact aquatic habitat connectivity on the Red and Wild Rice rivers. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation. Both the Minnesota and North Dakota alignments would require residential or farmstead relocations. The LPP 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: 110138, Supplemental Draft EIS--548 pages, Appendices, May 6, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Economic Assessments 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/873131402?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&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 - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 6, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). [Part 51 of 57] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). AN - 873129977; 14894-8_0051 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. This supplemental draft EIS includes additional analyses to identify ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. 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 approximately 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 $1.77 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 1.77. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action 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 would be nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All of the diversion channel alternatives could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River. The LPP could impact 998 acres of wetlands and significantly impact aquatic habitat connectivity on the Red and Wild Rice rivers. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation. Both the Minnesota and North Dakota alignments would require residential or farmstead relocations. The LPP 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: 110138, Supplemental Draft EIS--548 pages, Appendices, May 6, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 51 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Economic Assessments 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/873129977?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&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 - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 6, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). [Part 25 of 57] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). AN - 873129951; 14894-8_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. This supplemental draft EIS includes additional analyses to identify ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. 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 approximately 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 $1.77 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 1.77. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action 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 would be nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All of the diversion channel alternatives could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River. The LPP could impact 998 acres of wetlands and significantly impact aquatic habitat connectivity on the Red and Wild Rice rivers. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation. Both the Minnesota and North Dakota alignments would require residential or farmstead relocations. The LPP 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: 110138, Supplemental Draft EIS--548 pages, Appendices, May 6, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 25 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Economic Assessments 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/873129951?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&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 - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 6, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). [Part 24 of 57] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). AN - 873129938; 14894-8_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. This supplemental draft EIS includes additional analyses to identify ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. 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 approximately 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 $1.77 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 1.77. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action 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 would be nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All of the diversion channel alternatives could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River. The LPP could impact 998 acres of wetlands and significantly impact aquatic habitat connectivity on the Red and Wild Rice rivers. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation. Both the Minnesota and North Dakota alignments would require residential or farmstead relocations. The LPP 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: 110138, Supplemental Draft EIS--548 pages, Appendices, May 6, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 24 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Economic Assessments 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/873129938?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&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 - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 6, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). [Part 23 of 57] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). AN - 873129908; 14894-8_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. This supplemental draft EIS includes additional analyses to identify ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. 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 approximately 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 $1.77 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 1.77. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action 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 would be nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All of the diversion channel alternatives could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River. The LPP could impact 998 acres of wetlands and significantly impact aquatic habitat connectivity on the Red and Wild Rice rivers. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation. Both the Minnesota and North Dakota alignments would require residential or farmstead relocations. The LPP 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: 110138, Supplemental Draft EIS--548 pages, Appendices, May 6, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 23 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Economic Assessments 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/873129908?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&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 - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 6, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). [Part 9 of 57] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). AN - 873129885; 14894-8_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. This supplemental draft EIS includes additional analyses to identify ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. 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 approximately 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 $1.77 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 1.77. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action 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 would be nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All of the diversion channel alternatives could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River. The LPP could impact 998 acres of wetlands and significantly impact aquatic habitat connectivity on the Red and Wild Rice rivers. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation. Both the Minnesota and North Dakota alignments would require residential or farmstead relocations. The LPP 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: 110138, Supplemental Draft EIS--548 pages, Appendices, May 6, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Economic Assessments 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/873129885?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&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 - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 6, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). [Part 54 of 57] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). AN - 873129855; 14894-8_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. This supplemental draft EIS includes additional analyses to identify ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. 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 approximately 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 $1.77 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 1.77. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action 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 would be nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All of the diversion channel alternatives could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River. The LPP could impact 998 acres of wetlands and significantly impact aquatic habitat connectivity on the Red and Wild Rice rivers. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation. Both the Minnesota and North Dakota alignments would require residential or farmstead relocations. The LPP 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: 110138, Supplemental Draft EIS--548 pages, Appendices, May 6, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 54 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Economic Assessments 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/873129855?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&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 - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 6, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). [Part 8 of 57] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). AN - 873129852; 14894-8_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. This supplemental draft EIS includes additional analyses to identify ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. 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 approximately 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 $1.77 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 1.77. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action 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 would be nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All of the diversion channel alternatives could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River. The LPP could impact 998 acres of wetlands and significantly impact aquatic habitat connectivity on the Red and Wild Rice rivers. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation. Both the Minnesota and North Dakota alignments would require residential or farmstead relocations. The LPP 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: 110138, Supplemental Draft EIS--548 pages, Appendices, May 6, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Economic Assessments 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/873129852?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&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 - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 6, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). [Part 53 of 57] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). AN - 873129817; 14894-8_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. This supplemental draft EIS includes additional analyses to identify ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. 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 approximately 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 $1.77 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 1.77. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action 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 would be nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All of the diversion channel alternatives could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River. The LPP could impact 998 acres of wetlands and significantly impact aquatic habitat connectivity on the Red and Wild Rice rivers. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation. Both the Minnesota and North Dakota alignments would require residential or farmstead relocations. The LPP 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: 110138, Supplemental Draft EIS--548 pages, Appendices, May 6, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 53 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Economic Assessments 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/873129817?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&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 - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 6, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). [Part 52 of 57] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). AN - 873129798; 14894-8_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. This supplemental draft EIS includes additional analyses to identify ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. 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 approximately 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 $1.77 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 1.77. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action 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 would be nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All of the diversion channel alternatives could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River. The LPP could impact 998 acres of wetlands and significantly impact aquatic habitat connectivity on the Red and Wild Rice rivers. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation. Both the Minnesota and North Dakota alignments would require residential or farmstead relocations. The LPP 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: 110138, Supplemental Draft EIS--548 pages, Appendices, May 6, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 52 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Economic Assessments 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/873129798?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&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 - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 6, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). [Part 32 of 57] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). AN - 873129767; 14894-8_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. This supplemental draft EIS includes additional analyses to identify ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. 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 approximately 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 $1.77 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 1.77. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action 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 would be nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All of the diversion channel alternatives could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River. The LPP could impact 998 acres of wetlands and significantly impact aquatic habitat connectivity on the Red and Wild Rice rivers. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation. Both the Minnesota and North Dakota alignments would require residential or farmstead relocations. The LPP 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: 110138, Supplemental Draft EIS--548 pages, Appendices, May 6, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 32 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Economic Assessments 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/873129767?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&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 - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 6, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). [Part 31 of 57] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). AN - 873129751; 14894-8_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. This supplemental draft EIS includes additional analyses to identify ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. 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 approximately 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 $1.77 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 1.77. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action 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 would be nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All of the diversion channel alternatives could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River. The LPP could impact 998 acres of wetlands and significantly impact aquatic habitat connectivity on the Red and Wild Rice rivers. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation. Both the Minnesota and North Dakota alignments would require residential or farmstead relocations. The LPP 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: 110138, Supplemental Draft EIS--548 pages, Appendices, May 6, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 31 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Economic Assessments 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/873129751?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&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 - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 6, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). [Part 30 of 57] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). AN - 873129738; 14894-8_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. This supplemental draft EIS includes additional analyses to identify ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. 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 approximately 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 $1.77 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 1.77. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action 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 would be nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All of the diversion channel alternatives could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River. The LPP could impact 998 acres of wetlands and significantly impact aquatic habitat connectivity on the Red and Wild Rice rivers. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation. Both the Minnesota and North Dakota alignments would require residential or farmstead relocations. The LPP 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: 110138, Supplemental Draft EIS--548 pages, Appendices, May 6, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 30 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Economic Assessments 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/873129738?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&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 - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 6, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). [Part 29 of 57] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). AN - 873129713; 14894-8_0029 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. This supplemental draft EIS includes additional analyses to identify ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. 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 approximately 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 $1.77 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 1.77. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action 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 would be nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All of the diversion channel alternatives could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River. The LPP could impact 998 acres of wetlands and significantly impact aquatic habitat connectivity on the Red and Wild Rice rivers. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation. Both the Minnesota and North Dakota alignments would require residential or farmstead relocations. The LPP 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: 110138, Supplemental Draft EIS--548 pages, Appendices, May 6, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 29 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Economic Assessments 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/873129713?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&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 - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 6, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). [Part 11 of 57] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). AN - 873129689; 14894-8_0011 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. This supplemental draft EIS includes additional analyses to identify ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. 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 approximately 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 $1.77 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 1.77. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action 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 would be nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All of the diversion channel alternatives could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River. The LPP could impact 998 acres of wetlands and significantly impact aquatic habitat connectivity on the Red and Wild Rice rivers. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation. Both the Minnesota and North Dakota alignments would require residential or farmstead relocations. The LPP 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: 110138, Supplemental Draft EIS--548 pages, Appendices, May 6, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Economic Assessments 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/873129689?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&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 - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 6, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). [Part 10 of 57] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). AN - 873129649; 14894-8_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. This supplemental draft EIS includes additional analyses to identify ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. 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 approximately 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 $1.77 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 1.77. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action 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 would be nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All of the diversion channel alternatives could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River. The LPP could impact 998 acres of wetlands and significantly impact aquatic habitat connectivity on the Red and Wild Rice rivers. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation. Both the Minnesota and North Dakota alignments would require residential or farmstead relocations. The LPP 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: 110138, Supplemental Draft EIS--548 pages, Appendices, May 6, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Economic Assessments 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/873129649?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&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 - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 6, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). [Part 4 of 57] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). AN - 873129628; 14894-8_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. This supplemental draft EIS includes additional analyses to identify ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. 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 approximately 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 $1.77 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 1.77. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action 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 would be nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All of the diversion channel alternatives could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River. The LPP could impact 998 acres of wetlands and significantly impact aquatic habitat connectivity on the Red and Wild Rice rivers. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation. Both the Minnesota and North Dakota alignments would require residential or farmstead relocations. The LPP 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: 110138, Supplemental Draft EIS--548 pages, Appendices, May 6, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Economic Assessments 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/873129628?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&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 - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 6, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). [Part 3 of 57] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). AN - 873129589; 14894-8_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. This supplemental draft EIS includes additional analyses to identify ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. 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 approximately 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 $1.77 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 1.77. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action 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 would be nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All of the diversion channel alternatives could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River. The LPP could impact 998 acres of wetlands and significantly impact aquatic habitat connectivity on the Red and Wild Rice rivers. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation. Both the Minnesota and North Dakota alignments would require residential or farmstead relocations. The LPP 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: 110138, Supplemental Draft EIS--548 pages, Appendices, May 6, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Economic Assessments 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/873129589?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&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 - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 6, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). [Part 57 of 57] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). AN - 873127995; 14894-8_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. This supplemental draft EIS includes additional analyses to identify ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. 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 approximately 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 $1.77 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 1.77. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action 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 would be nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All of the diversion channel alternatives could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River. The LPP could impact 998 acres of wetlands and significantly impact aquatic habitat connectivity on the Red and Wild Rice rivers. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation. Both the Minnesota and North Dakota alignments would require residential or farmstead relocations. The LPP 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: 110138, Supplemental Draft EIS--548 pages, Appendices, May 6, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 57 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Economic Assessments 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/873127995?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&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 - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 6, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). [Part 56 of 57] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). AN - 873127988; 14894-8_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. This supplemental draft EIS includes additional analyses to identify ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. 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 approximately 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 $1.77 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 1.77. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action 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 would be nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All of the diversion channel alternatives could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River. The LPP could impact 998 acres of wetlands and significantly impact aquatic habitat connectivity on the Red and Wild Rice rivers. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation. Both the Minnesota and North Dakota alignments would require residential or farmstead relocations. The LPP 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: 110138, Supplemental Draft EIS--548 pages, Appendices, May 6, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 56 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Economic Assessments 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/873127988?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&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 - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 6, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). [Part 55 of 57] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). AN - 873127971; 14894-8_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. This supplemental draft EIS includes additional analyses to identify ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. 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 approximately 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 $1.77 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 1.77. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action 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 would be nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All of the diversion channel alternatives could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River. The LPP could impact 998 acres of wetlands and significantly impact aquatic habitat connectivity on the Red and Wild Rice rivers. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation. Both the Minnesota and North Dakota alignments would require residential or farmstead relocations. The LPP 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: 110138, Supplemental Draft EIS--548 pages, Appendices, May 6, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 55 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Economic Assessments 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/873127971?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&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 - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 6, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). [Part 13 of 57] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). AN - 873127960; 14894-8_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. This supplemental draft EIS includes additional analyses to identify ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. 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 approximately 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 $1.77 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 1.77. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action 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 would be nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All of the diversion channel alternatives could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River. The LPP could impact 998 acres of wetlands and significantly impact aquatic habitat connectivity on the Red and Wild Rice rivers. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation. Both the Minnesota and North Dakota alignments would require residential or farmstead relocations. The LPP 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: 110138, Supplemental Draft EIS--548 pages, Appendices, May 6, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Economic Assessments 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/873127960?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&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 - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 6, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). [Part 12 of 57] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). AN - 873127951; 14894-8_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. This supplemental draft EIS includes additional analyses to identify ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. 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 approximately 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 $1.77 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 1.77. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action 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 would be nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All of the diversion channel alternatives could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River. The LPP could impact 998 acres of wetlands and significantly impact aquatic habitat connectivity on the Red and Wild Rice rivers. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation. Both the Minnesota and North Dakota alignments would require residential or farmstead relocations. The LPP 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: 110138, Supplemental Draft EIS--548 pages, Appendices, May 6, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Economic Assessments 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/873127951?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&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 - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 6, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). [Part 50 of 57] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). AN - 873127637; 14894-8_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. This supplemental draft EIS includes additional analyses to identify ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. 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 approximately 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 $1.77 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 1.77. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action 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 would be nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All of the diversion channel alternatives could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River. The LPP could impact 998 acres of wetlands and significantly impact aquatic habitat connectivity on the Red and Wild Rice rivers. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation. Both the Minnesota and North Dakota alignments would require residential or farmstead relocations. The LPP 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: 110138, Supplemental Draft EIS--548 pages, Appendices, May 6, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 50 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Economic Assessments 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/873127637?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&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 - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 6, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). [Part 49 of 57] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). AN - 873127633; 14894-8_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. This supplemental draft EIS includes additional analyses to identify ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. 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 approximately 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 $1.77 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 1.77. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action 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 would be nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All of the diversion channel alternatives could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River. The LPP could impact 998 acres of wetlands and significantly impact aquatic habitat connectivity on the Red and Wild Rice rivers. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation. Both the Minnesota and North Dakota alignments would require residential or farmstead relocations. The LPP 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: 110138, Supplemental Draft EIS--548 pages, Appendices, May 6, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 49 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Economic Assessments 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/873127633?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&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 - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 6, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). [Part 48 of 57] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). AN - 873127627; 14894-8_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. This supplemental draft EIS includes additional analyses to identify ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. 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 approximately 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 $1.77 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 1.77. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action 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 would be nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All of the diversion channel alternatives could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River. The LPP could impact 998 acres of wetlands and significantly impact aquatic habitat connectivity on the Red and Wild Rice rivers. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation. Both the Minnesota and North Dakota alignments would require residential or farmstead relocations. The LPP 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: 110138, Supplemental Draft EIS--548 pages, Appendices, May 6, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 48 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Economic Assessments 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/873127627?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&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 - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 6, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). [Part 47 of 57] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). AN - 873127622; 14894-8_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. This supplemental draft EIS includes additional analyses to identify ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. 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 approximately 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 $1.77 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 1.77. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action 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 would be nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All of the diversion channel alternatives could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River. The LPP could impact 998 acres of wetlands and significantly impact aquatic habitat connectivity on the Red and Wild Rice rivers. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation. Both the Minnesota and North Dakota alignments would require residential or farmstead relocations. The LPP 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: 110138, Supplemental Draft EIS--548 pages, Appendices, May 6, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 47 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Economic Assessments 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/873127622?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&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 - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 6, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). [Part 46 of 57] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). AN - 873127616; 14894-8_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. This supplemental draft EIS includes additional analyses to identify ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. 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 approximately 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 $1.77 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 1.77. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action 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 would be nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All of the diversion channel alternatives could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River. The LPP could impact 998 acres of wetlands and significantly impact aquatic habitat connectivity on the Red and Wild Rice rivers. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation. Both the Minnesota and North Dakota alignments would require residential or farmstead relocations. The LPP 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: 110138, Supplemental Draft EIS--548 pages, Appendices, May 6, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 46 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Economic Assessments 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/873127616?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&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 - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 6, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). [Part 45 of 57] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). AN - 873127609; 14894-8_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. This supplemental draft EIS includes additional analyses to identify ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. 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 approximately 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 $1.77 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 1.77. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action 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 would be nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All of the diversion channel alternatives could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River. The LPP could impact 998 acres of wetlands and significantly impact aquatic habitat connectivity on the Red and Wild Rice rivers. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation. Both the Minnesota and North Dakota alignments would require residential or farmstead relocations. The LPP 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: 110138, Supplemental Draft EIS--548 pages, Appendices, May 6, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 45 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Economic Assessments 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/873127609?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&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 - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 6, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). [Part 44 of 57] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). AN - 873127602; 14894-8_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. This supplemental draft EIS includes additional analyses to identify ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. 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 approximately 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 $1.77 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 1.77. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action 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 would be nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All of the diversion channel alternatives could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River. The LPP could impact 998 acres of wetlands and significantly impact aquatic habitat connectivity on the Red and Wild Rice rivers. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation. Both the Minnesota and North Dakota alignments would require residential or farmstead relocations. The LPP 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: 110138, Supplemental Draft EIS--548 pages, Appendices, May 6, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 44 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Economic Assessments 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/873127602?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&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 - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 6, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). [Part 43 of 57] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). AN - 873127478; 14894-8_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. This supplemental draft EIS includes additional analyses to identify ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. 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 approximately 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 $1.77 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 1.77. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action 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 would be nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All of the diversion channel alternatives could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River. The LPP could impact 998 acres of wetlands and significantly impact aquatic habitat connectivity on the Red and Wild Rice rivers. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation. Both the Minnesota and North Dakota alignments would require residential or farmstead relocations. The LPP 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: 110138, Supplemental Draft EIS--548 pages, Appendices, May 6, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 43 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Economic Assessments 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/873127478?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&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 - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 6, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). [Part 42 of 57] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). AN - 873127468; 14894-8_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. This supplemental draft EIS includes additional analyses to identify ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. 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 approximately 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 $1.77 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 1.77. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action 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 would be nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All of the diversion channel alternatives could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River. The LPP could impact 998 acres of wetlands and significantly impact aquatic habitat connectivity on the Red and Wild Rice rivers. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation. Both the Minnesota and North Dakota alignments would require residential or farmstead relocations. The LPP 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: 110138, Supplemental Draft EIS--548 pages, Appendices, May 6, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 42 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Economic Assessments 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/873127468?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&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 - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 6, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). [Part 41 of 57] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). AN - 873127455; 14894-8_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. This supplemental draft EIS includes additional analyses to identify ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. 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 approximately 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 $1.77 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 1.77. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action 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 would be nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All of the diversion channel alternatives could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River. The LPP could impact 998 acres of wetlands and significantly impact aquatic habitat connectivity on the Red and Wild Rice rivers. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation. Both the Minnesota and North Dakota alignments would require residential or farmstead relocations. The LPP 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: 110138, Supplemental Draft EIS--548 pages, Appendices, May 6, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 41 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Economic Assessments 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/873127455?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&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 - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 6, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). [Part 40 of 57] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). AN - 873127444; 14894-8_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. This supplemental draft EIS includes additional analyses to identify ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. 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 approximately 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 $1.77 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 1.77. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action 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 would be nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All of the diversion channel alternatives could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River. The LPP could impact 998 acres of wetlands and significantly impact aquatic habitat connectivity on the Red and Wild Rice rivers. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation. Both the Minnesota and North Dakota alignments would require residential or farmstead relocations. The LPP 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: 110138, Supplemental Draft EIS--548 pages, Appendices, May 6, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 40 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Economic Assessments 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/873127444?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&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 - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 6, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). [Part 17 of 57] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). AN - 873127434; 14894-8_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. This supplemental draft EIS includes additional analyses to identify ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. 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 approximately 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 $1.77 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 1.77. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action 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 would be nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All of the diversion channel alternatives could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River. The LPP could impact 998 acres of wetlands and significantly impact aquatic habitat connectivity on the Red and Wild Rice rivers. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation. Both the Minnesota and North Dakota alignments would require residential or farmstead relocations. The LPP 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: 110138, Supplemental Draft EIS--548 pages, Appendices, May 6, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 17 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Economic Assessments 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/873127434?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&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 - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 6, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). [Part 16 of 57] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). AN - 873127423; 14894-8_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. This supplemental draft EIS includes additional analyses to identify ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. 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 approximately 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 $1.77 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 1.77. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action 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 would be nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All of the diversion channel alternatives could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River. The LPP could impact 998 acres of wetlands and significantly impact aquatic habitat connectivity on the Red and Wild Rice rivers. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation. Both the Minnesota and North Dakota alignments would require residential or farmstead relocations. The LPP 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: 110138, Supplemental Draft EIS--548 pages, Appendices, May 6, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 16 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Economic Assessments 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/873127423?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&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 - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 6, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). [Part 15 of 57] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). AN - 873127414; 14894-8_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. This supplemental draft EIS includes additional analyses to identify ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. 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 approximately 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 $1.77 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 1.77. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action 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 would be nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All of the diversion channel alternatives could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River. The LPP could impact 998 acres of wetlands and significantly impact aquatic habitat connectivity on the Red and Wild Rice rivers. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation. Both the Minnesota and North Dakota alignments would require residential or farmstead relocations. The LPP 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: 110138, Supplemental Draft EIS--548 pages, Appendices, May 6, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Economic Assessments 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/873127414?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&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 - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 6, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). [Part 14 of 57] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). AN - 873127403; 14894-8_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. This supplemental draft EIS includes additional analyses to identify ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. 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 approximately 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 $1.77 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 1.77. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action 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 would be nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All of the diversion channel alternatives could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River. The LPP could impact 998 acres of wetlands and significantly impact aquatic habitat connectivity on the Red and Wild Rice rivers. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation. Both the Minnesota and North Dakota alignments would require residential or farmstead relocations. The LPP 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: 110138, Supplemental Draft EIS--548 pages, Appendices, May 6, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Economic Assessments 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/873127403?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&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 - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 6, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2010). AN - 16372807; 14894 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. This supplemental draft EIS includes additional analyses to identify ways to minimize downstream impacts from the LPP. 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 approximately 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 $1.77 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 1.77. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action 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 would be nearly eliminated with the addition of upstream staging and storage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All of the diversion channel alternatives could alter hydraulic conditions for the Red River. The LPP could impact 998 acres of wetlands and significantly impact aquatic habitat connectivity on the Red and Wild Rice rivers. The LPP would remove 6,878 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation. Both the Minnesota and North Dakota alignments would require residential or farmstead relocations. The LPP 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: 110138, Supplemental Draft EIS--548 pages, Appendices, May 6, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Economic Assessments 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/16372807?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2010%29.&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 - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 6, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Relationship of surface changes to metal leaching from tungsten composite shot exposed to three different soil types AN - 876225979; 14881362 AB - Physical changes that occur on the surface of fired shots due to firing and impact with soil may increase the dissolution of muniton metals. Increased metal dissolution could potentially increase metal transport and leaching, affecting metal concentrations in surface and groundwater. This research describes the relationship between the surface changes on fired tungstenanickelairon (94% W:2% Ni:4% Fe) composite shots and metals leaching from those shots. Tungsten composite shot was fired into, and aged in, three soil types (Silty Sand, Sandy Clay, and Silt) in mesoscale rainfall lysimeters to simulate live-fire conditions and subsequent interactions between the metals of the composite and soil. Leachate, runoff, and soil samples were collected from the lysimeters and analyzed for metal content. The shots were analyzed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) to evaluate surface changes. SEM results indicated that a soilas particle size distribution initially affected the amount of metal that was sheared from the surface of the fired W-composite shots. Shearing was greatest in soils with larger soil particles (sand and gravel); shearing was least in soils composed of small soil particles (fines). Increased metallic shearing from the shotas surface was associated with increased W dissolution, compared to controls, following a simulated 1year soil aging. JF - Chemosphere AU - Felt, Deborah AU - Larson, Steven AU - Griggs, Chris AU - Nestler, Catherine AU - Wynter, Michelle AD - US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180, USA Y1 - 2011/05// PY - 2011 DA - May 2011 SP - 955 EP - 962 PB - Elsevier Science, P.O. Box 800 Kidlington Oxford OX5 1DX UK VL - 83 IS - 7 SN - 0045-6535, 0045-6535 KW - Environment Abstracts; Pollution Abstracts KW - Tungsten composite ammunition KW - Leaching potential KW - Scanning electron microscopy KW - Soil type KW - Soil lysimeter KW - Soil KW - Metals KW - sandy soils KW - soil types KW - Leaching KW - composite materials KW - Particulates KW - Groundwater KW - Tungsten KW - aging KW - P 2000:FRESHWATER POLLUTION KW - ENA 15:Renewable Resources-Terrestrial UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876225979?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Apollution&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Chemosphere&rft.atitle=Relationship+of+surface+changes+to+metal+leaching+from+tungsten+composite+shot+exposed+to+three+different+soil+types&rft.au=Felt%2C+Deborah%3BLarson%2C+Steven%3BGriggs%2C+Chris%3BNestler%2C+Catherine%3BWynter%2C+Michelle&rft.aulast=Felt&rft.aufirst=Deborah&rft.date=2011-05-01&rft.volume=83&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=955&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Chemosphere&rft.issn=00456535&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.chemosphere.2011.02.035 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - Last updated - 2015-03-19 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Soil; sandy soils; Metals; soil types; composite materials; Leaching; Particulates; Groundwater; aging; Tungsten DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2011.02.035 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Flow Velocity and Pier Scour Prediction in a Compound Channel: Big Sioux River Bridge at Flandreau, South Dakota AN - 874192266; 14871934 AB - The two-dimensional (2D) depth-averaged river model Finite-Element Surface-Water Modeling System (FESWMS) was used to predict flow distribution at the bend of a compound channel. The site studied was the Highway 13 bridge over the Big Sioux River in Flandreau, South Dakota. The Flandreau site has complex channel and floodplain geometry that produces unique flow conditions at the bridge crossing. The 2D model was calibrated using flow measurements obtained during two floods in 1993. The calibrated model was used to examine the hydraulic and geomorphic factors that affect the main channel and floodplain flows and the flow interactions between the two portions. A one-dimensional (1D) flow model of the bridge site was also created in Hydrologic Engineering Centers River Analysis System (HEC-RAS) for comparison. Soil samples were collected from the bridge site and tested in an erosion function apparatus (EFA) to determine the critical shear stress and erosion rate constant. The results of EFA testing and 2D flow modeling were used as inputs to the Scour Rate in Cohesive Soils (SRICOS) method to predict local scour at the northern and southernmost piers. The sensitivity of predicted scour depth to the hydraulic and soil parameters was examined. The predicted scour depth was very sensitive to the approach-flow velocity and critical shear stress. Overall, this study has provided a better understanding of 2D flow effects in compound channels and an overall assessment of the SRICOS method for prediction of bridge pier scour. JF - Journal of Hydraulic Engineering AU - Larsen, Ryan J AU - Ting, Francis CK AU - Jones, Allen L AD - Hydraulic Engineer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District, Omaha, NE 68102., francis.ting@sdstate.edu Y1 - 2011/05// PY - 2011 DA - May 2011 SP - 595 EP - 605 PB - American Society of Civil Engineers (Hydraulics), 345 E. 47th St. New York NY 10017-2398 USA VL - 137 IS - 5 SN - 0733-9429, 0733-9429 KW - ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Water Resources Abstracts; Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; Aqualine Abstracts KW - Highway bridges KW - Channels KW - Two-dimensional flow KW - Hydraulic models KW - Hydraulics KW - Piers KW - Scour KW - Cohesive soils KW - South Dakota KW - Hydraulic engineering KW - Soil erosion KW - Freshwater KW - Flow measurement KW - Finite-element methods KW - Hydrologic Models KW - Floods KW - Coastal morphology KW - Soils KW - Shear Stress KW - River Flow KW - Erosion rates KW - USA, South Dakota KW - Rivers KW - Shear stress KW - Bridges KW - River discharge KW - Erosion KW - Scouring KW - Flood plains KW - Hydrologic engineering KW - AQ 00001:Water Resources and Supplies KW - M2 556:General (556) KW - SW 6010:Structures KW - Q2 09124:Coastal zone management UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/874192266?accountid=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=Flow+Velocity+and+Pier+Scour+Prediction+in+a+Compound+Channel%3A+Big+Sioux+River+Bridge+at+Flandreau%2C+South+Dakota&rft.au=Larsen%2C+Ryan+J%3BTing%2C+Francis+CK%3BJones%2C+Allen+L&rft.aulast=Larsen&rft.aufirst=Ryan&rft.date=2011-05-01&rft.volume=137&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=595&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Hydraulic+Engineering&rft.issn=07339429&rft_id=info:doi/10.1061%2F%28ASCE%29HY.1943-7900.0000334 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - Last updated - 2017-02-15 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Channels; Shear stress; Scouring; Flood plains; Coastal morphology; Soils; River discharge; Soil erosion; Flow measurement; Erosion; Finite-element methods; Floods; Hydraulic engineering; Hydrologic engineering; Erosion rates; Rivers; Hydraulics; Piers; Bridges; Hydrologic Models; Scour; Shear Stress; River Flow; USA, South Dakota; Freshwater DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0000334 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - A Library of Two Turbulence Closure Schemes AN - 1285085667; 15357191 AB - Two two-equation turbulence closure models are implemented in a three dimensional (3D) hydrodynamic model (Adaptive Hydraulics; ADH). The implementation is in the form of a modular library that can in effect be called from any 3D hydrodynamic model. The models incorporated into this library consist of the two equation Mellor-Yamada level 2.5 and the Kappa - epsilon model. The two equation models have the capability to represent several real world phenomenons such as density stratification, flow separation and suspended sediment transport. The presence of multiple turbulence closure models, of varied complexity from one equation to two equations, allows for the selection of a model best suited for the problem at hand. The implementation of this library was tested using a vertical backstep problem. JF - Reston, VA: ASCE Proceedings of the 2011 World Environmental and Water Resources Congress; May 22.26, 2011, Palm Springs, California, d 20110000 AU - Savant, Gaurav AU - McAlpin, Tate O AU - Berger, Charlie AU - Barry, Kevin M AD - Research Water Resources Engineer, Dynamic Solutions LLC, Contractor US Army Corps of Engineers, 3909 Halls Ferry Rd, Vicksburg, MS 39180. Y1 - 2011/05// PY - 2011 DA - May 2011 SP - 2125 EP - 2134 PB - American Society of Civil Engineers KW - Aqualine Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality KW - Turbulence KW - Hydrodynamics KW - Sediment Transport KW - Hydraulics KW - Suspended Sediments KW - Mathematical models KW - Water resources KW - turbulence KW - Environmental factors KW - Density stratification KW - Model Studies KW - Libraries KW - Sediment transport KW - Density Stratification KW - AQ 00001:Water Resources and Supplies KW - Q5 08503:Characteristics, behavior and fate KW - SW 5010:Network design KW - Q2 09264:Sediments and sedimentation UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1285085667?accountid=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=Reston%2C+VA%3A+ASCE+Proceedings+of+the+2011+World+Environmental+and+Water+Resources+Congress%3B+May+22.26%2C+2011%2C+Palm+Springs%2C+California+%7Cd+20110000&rft.atitle=A+Library+of+Two+Turbulence+Closure+Schemes&rft.au=Savant%2C+Gaurav%3BMcAlpin%2C+Tate+O%3BBerger%2C+Charlie%3BBarry%2C+Kevin+M&rft.aulast=Savant&rft.aufirst=Gaurav&rft.date=2011-05-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=2125&rft.isbn=9780784411735&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Reston%2C+VA%3A+ASCE+Proceedings+of+the+2011+World+Environmental+and+Water+Resources+Congress%3B+May+22.26%2C+2011%2C+Palm+Springs%2C+California+%7Cd+20110000&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/10.1061%2F41173%28414%29222 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2013-02-01 N1 - Last updated - 2017-02-15 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Mathematical models; Libraries; Water resources; Sediment transport; Turbulence; Density stratification; Environmental factors; Sediment Transport; Hydraulics; Suspended Sediments; Hydrodynamics; turbulence; Density Stratification; Model Studies DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/41173(414)222 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Stochastic Generation of Daily and Hourly Temperature Data Using Combined Parametric and Nonparametric Models AN - 1285085156; 15357289 AB - At this time, neither general circulation models (which compute at large spatial scales) nor basin hydrologic models (which compute at smaller spatial scales) are capable of providing the necessary information to assess climate change phenomenon. In order to bridge the gap between general circulation models (GCMs) and hydrologic models, stochastic weather generators have become a popular choice to create the hydrometeorological parameters that represent climatic trends indicated by GCMs and provide the temporal and spatial resolutions required by hydrologic models. The work described here shows the generation of daily and hourly temperature data using a model developed by combining parametric and nonparametric methods. The model results were then compared to those using a k-nearest neighbor (k-NN) model to test for model performance. Overall, the k-NN model performed better at the hourly scale; however, both the combined and k-NN models performed similarily at the daily scale. Limitations of the k-NN model include the inability to generate values beyond the historical values, which does not reflect the possiblity of extreme events. JF - Reston, VA: ASCE Proceedings of the 2011 World Environmental and Water Resources Congress; May 22.26, 2011, Palm Springs, California, d 20110000 AU - Lee, A AU - Byrd, A R AD - Research Hydraulic Engineer, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory, 3909 Halls Ferry Rd, Vicksburg, MS 39180. Y1 - 2011/05// PY - 2011 DA - May 2011 SP - 3067 EP - 3074 PB - American Society of Civil Engineers KW - Aqualine Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality KW - Stochastic models KW - Temperature effects KW - Parameters KW - Hydrologic models KW - Weather KW - Bridges KW - Mathematical models KW - Climate change KW - Temperature KW - Water resources KW - Atmospheric circulation KW - Model Testing KW - Watersheds KW - Performance Evaluation KW - Hydrologic Models KW - Temperature data KW - Modelling KW - Q2 09243:Structure, mechanics and thermodynamics KW - SW 5010:Network design KW - Q5 08502:Methods and instruments KW - AQ 00003:Monitoring and Analysis of Water and Wastes UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1285085156?accountid=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=Reston%2C+VA%3A+ASCE+Proceedings+of+the+2011+World+Environmental+and+Water+Resources+Congress%3B+May+22.26%2C+2011%2C+Palm+Springs%2C+California+%7Cd+20110000&rft.atitle=Stochastic+Generation+of+Daily+and+Hourly+Temperature+Data+Using+Combined+Parametric+and+Nonparametric+Models&rft.au=Lee%2C+A%3BByrd%2C+A+R&rft.aulast=Lee&rft.aufirst=A&rft.date=2011-05-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=3067&rft.isbn=9780784411735&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Reston%2C+VA%3A+ASCE+Proceedings+of+the+2011+World+Environmental+and+Water+Resources+Congress%3B+May+22.26%2C+2011%2C+Palm+Springs%2C+California+%7Cd+20110000&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/10.1061%2F41173%28414%29320 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2013-02-01 N1 - Last updated - 2017-02-15 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Mathematical models; Climate change; Water resources; Atmospheric circulation; Temperature data; Modelling; Weather; Performance Evaluation; Bridges; Hydrologic Models; Temperature; Model Testing; Watersheds DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/41173(414)320 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Collaborative Modeling for Decision Support-Definitions and Next Steps AN - 1285085121; 15357261 AB - In October 2009, four U.S. government agencies (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution, and Sandia National Labs) hosted the second biennial workshop on integrating collaborative modeling with participatory processes to inform water and other natural resource management decisions. This workshop on Collaborative Modeling for Decision Support brought state, interstate, federal, and local water managers together with non-profits, academics and the private sector to develop a strategic plan for improving the state-of-the-art of integration of systems modeling with collaborative process techniques and promoting use of these tools in solving water resources problems. The group discussed current and potential applications, needs to advance the field, as well as best practices. Following the conference, a steering committee continued to push forward initiatives to advance the field and grow the community of practice. Initiatives include (1) creating opportunities for training and mentoring, (2) developing evaluation mechanisms, (3) establishing an on-line communication tool, (4) networking and expanding our community to include international and Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) practitioners, and (5) increasing agency and political support for collaborative modeling. JF - Reston, VA: ASCE Proceedings of the 2011 World Environmental and Water Resources Congress; May 22.26, 2011, Palm Springs, California, d 20110000 AU - Cardwell, Hal E AU - Langsdale, Stacy AD - Institute for Water Resources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alexandria VA. Y1 - 2011/05// PY - 2011 DA - May 2011 SP - 2805 EP - 2814 PB - American Society of Civil Engineers KW - Aqualine Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality KW - Decision support systems KW - Water resources KW - Communication KW - Water Resources Management KW - Evaluation KW - Natural Resources KW - Disputes KW - Modelling KW - Training KW - Environmental Protection KW - Environmental protection KW - Model Studies KW - Water management KW - Natural resources KW - Governments KW - Resource development KW - Environment management KW - Water Resources KW - Q5 08503:Characteristics, behavior and fate KW - AQ 00006:Sewage KW - SW 5080:Evaluation, processing and publication KW - Q2 09124:Coastal zone management UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1285085121?accountid=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=Reston%2C+VA%3A+ASCE+Proceedings+of+the+2011+World+Environmental+and+Water+Resources+Congress%3B+May+22.26%2C+2011%2C+Palm+Springs%2C+California+%7Cd+20110000&rft.atitle=Collaborative+Modeling+for+Decision+Support-Definitions+and+Next+Steps&rft.au=Cardwell%2C+Hal+E%3BLangsdale%2C+Stacy&rft.aulast=Cardwell&rft.aufirst=Hal&rft.date=2011-05-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=2805&rft.isbn=9780784411735&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Reston%2C+VA%3A+ASCE+Proceedings+of+the+2011+World+Environmental+and+Water+Resources+Congress%3B+May+22.26%2C+2011%2C+Palm+Springs%2C+California+%7Cd+20110000&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/10.1061%2F41173%28414%29292 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2013-02-01 N1 - Last updated - 2017-02-15 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Water management; Natural resources; Water resources; Governments; Disputes; Resource development; Environment management; Environmental protection; Modelling; Evaluation; Natural Resources; Training; Communication; Environmental Protection; Water Resources Management; Water Resources; Model Studies DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/41173(414)292 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Building Hydraulic Structures to Analyze Flow and Sediment Transport Characteristics in the Entrance of Sunset Marina AN - 1285084383; 15357224 AB - The Sunset Marina in the City of Rock Island, Illinois is located at River Mile (RM) 479.8 of the Mississippi River, approximately three miles downstream from the Lock and Dam 15. This harbor was constructed on the left bank of the Mississippi River, and completed in 1956. Since that, the problem of sediment deposition at the entrance to Sunset Marina has existed. For maintaining access to the marina, maintenance dredging has been required frequently. To reduce the costs of dredging and keep the marina operable and functioning, an investigation searching for alternatives is needed. This study modeled the area near the Sunset Marina from RM 477 to RM 482 in the Mississippi River using the ADaptive Hydraulics (ADH) Modeling System. Alternatives, including with and without hydraulic structures, for various flow conditions were compared to analyze any kind of changes on flow and sediment transport characteristics in the vicinity of the Sunset Marina as well as in the entrance to the harbor. This study showed that (1) hydraulic structures, such as a dike with a length of 1,460 feet or 870 feet, does change the flow and sediment transport characteristics; (2) the change for a dike with a short length (870 feet) is more significant than that for a dike with a long length (1,460 feet); and (3) the change is occurred only for the low flow conditions, such as 2-year flow, and no change is found for the high flow conditions, such as 5-year flow. JF - Reston, VA: ASCE Proceedings of the 2011 World Environmental and Water Resources Congress; May 22.26, 2011, Palm Springs, California, d 20110000 AU - Xia, Renjie AD - Ph.D., P.E., Hydraulic Engineer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Rock Island District, Clock Tower Building, P.O. Box 2004, Rock Island, IL 61204. Y1 - 2011/05// PY - 2011 DA - May 2011 SP - 2459 EP - 2467 PB - American Society of Civil Engineers KW - Aqualine Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality KW - Hydraulic structures KW - Sediment transport KW - Illinois KW - Mississippi River KW - Dams KW - Water resources KW - Dikes KW - Sedimentation KW - Rivers KW - Sediment Transport KW - USA, Illinois KW - Marinas KW - Hydraulic Structures KW - Harbours KW - Model Studies KW - North America, Mississippi R. KW - Deposition KW - Dredging KW - Harbors KW - Q5 08503:Characteristics, behavior and fate KW - SW 5010:Network design KW - Q2 09264:Sediments and sedimentation KW - AQ 00005:Underground Services and Water Use UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1285084383?accountid=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=Reston%2C+VA%3A+ASCE+Proceedings+of+the+2011+World+Environmental+and+Water+Resources+Congress%3B+May+22.26%2C+2011%2C+Palm+Springs%2C+California+%7Cd+20110000&rft.atitle=Building+Hydraulic+Structures+to+Analyze+Flow+and+Sediment+Transport+Characteristics+in+the+Entrance+of+Sunset+Marina&rft.au=Xia%2C+Renjie&rft.aulast=Xia&rft.aufirst=Renjie&rft.date=2011-05-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=2459&rft.isbn=9780784411735&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Reston%2C+VA%3A+ASCE+Proceedings+of+the+2011+World+Environmental+and+Water+Resources+Congress%3B+May+22.26%2C+2011%2C+Palm+Springs%2C+California+%7Cd+20110000&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/10.1061%2F41173%28414%29255 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2013-02-01 N1 - Last updated - 2017-02-15 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Hydraulic structures; Water resources; Dredging; Sediment transport; Sedimentation; Harbours; Sediment Transport; Rivers; Dikes; Marinas; Deposition; Hydraulic Structures; Harbors; Model Studies; North America, Mississippi R.; USA, Illinois DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/41173(414)255 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Approximating the Probability of the Probable Maximum Flood AN - 1285084331; 15357356 AB - The Corps of Engineers is performing an on-going evaluation of its portfolio of dams with regard to risk and related maintenance. One of the contributing factors that must be uniformly evaluated across all projects is the development of frequency curves (peak flow and volume frequency) which define the flow values for the mid-range events (1 in 500 to 1 in 3000) and then extend out to the Probable Maximum Food (PMF) level. Currently, no method for extending frequency curves to the PMF level is uniformly accepted. The current effort being undertaken by the Hydrologic Engineering Center is to provide general guidance for curve extension to the level of the PMF and provide a simple method to estimate the probability of the PMF. A consistent method of curve extension allows for a uniform comparison of dams. Part of the curve extension is to estimate the Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) of the PMF. This paper will describe a method for estimating the AEP of the PMF. JF - Reston, VA: ASCE Proceedings of the 2011 World Environmental and Water Resources Congress; May 22.26, 2011, Palm Springs, California, d 20110000 AU - Harris, Jeff AU - Brunner, Gary AD - Chief, H&H Technology Division, Hydrologic Engineering Center, US Army Corps of Engineers, 609 2 super(nd) Street, Davis, CA 95616. Y1 - 2011/05// PY - 2011 DA - May 2011 SP - 3695 EP - 3702 PB - American Society of Civil Engineers KW - Aqualine Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality KW - Probability KW - Floods KW - Estimating KW - Water resources KW - Maintenance KW - Evaluation KW - Civil Engineering KW - Risk KW - Foods KW - Dams KW - AQ 00007:Industrial Effluents KW - SW 5080:Evaluation, processing and publication KW - Q5 08504:Effects on organisms KW - Q2 09162:Methods and instruments UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1285084331?accountid=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=Reston%2C+VA%3A+ASCE+Proceedings+of+the+2011+World+Environmental+and+Water+Resources+Congress%3B+May+22.26%2C+2011%2C+Palm+Springs%2C+California+%7Cd+20110000&rft.atitle=Approximating+the+Probability+of+the+Probable+Maximum+Flood&rft.au=Harris%2C+Jeff%3BBrunner%2C+Gary&rft.aulast=Harris&rft.aufirst=Jeff&rft.date=2011-05-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=3695&rft.isbn=9780784411735&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Reston%2C+VA%3A+ASCE+Proceedings+of+the+2011+World+Environmental+and+Water+Resources+Congress%3B+May+22.26%2C+2011%2C+Palm+Springs%2C+California+%7Cd+20110000&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/10.1061%2F41173%28414%29387 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2013-02-01 N1 - Last updated - 2017-02-15 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Floods; Dams; Water resources; Evaluation; Risk; Civil Engineering; Foods; Estimating; Maintenance DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/41173(414)387 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Using GIS to Optimize Hydraulic Analysis of Macro and Micro Scale Flow Ways for Macro Scale Wetlands Restoration-Challenges, Solutions, and Lessons Learned AN - 1285084129; 15357175 AB - The use of GIS based methods to analyze macro and micro scale flow ways within the Picayune Strand Restoration Project (PSRP) in southwest Florida is described in this paper. Restoration of 55,000 acres of nationally prominent wetlands that were profoundly impacted decades ago by the installation of roads and drainage canals in this area is currently under way. In this situation, models are a fundamental requirement for assessment of rehabilitation alternatives and for designing new hydraulic structures. The first step towards building these models was to analyze and locate the flow-ways throughout the restoration area. The intent is to do this such that a distributed hydrologic model (Gridded Surface Subsurface Hydrologic Analysis (GSSHA) was selected) can be used to perform the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses of the area. Since project requirements range from planning analysis to detailed design, modeling is being done in a series of model tiers from macro scale (thousands of feet) to micro scale (tens of feet) resolution. Reconciling these widely differing scales was not straight forward. The large scale and varying resolution introduced numerical factors that were challenging. In particular, maintaining a consistent connectivity and model structure given that some features were strongly affected by grid scale was a complicated. This is a critical issue, since maintaining a continuation of positive drainage throughout the area in a way that does not increase the potential for flooding outside the project area is a preoccupation of the modeling effort. This is not just a complex hydrologic problem, because part of the compensation for removal of canal features was to capture and discharge upstream flows through several large (several thousand cfs) pumps to spreading berms and spreading canals that approximate predeveloped overland flow conditions, in a way that does not threaten existing dwellings and vulnerable points with flooding damage. This meant that the data also needed to accommodate representation of abrupt changes in flow conditions. A complicating factor was the need to manage artifacts in the topographic data introduced by the LIDAR techniques used to gather the data, and de-corrugating processing that was applied in this project is discussed. JF - Reston, VA: ASCE Proceedings of the 2011 World Environmental and Water Resources Congress; May 22.26, 2011, Palm Springs, California, d 20110000 AU - Weston, David AU - Rowney, Charles AU - Vogler, Dan AU - Fuxan, Amber AU - Kent, Edward AD - USACE, Jacksonville, Florida, USA Y1 - 2011/05// PY - 2011 DA - May 2011 SP - 1963 EP - 1972 PB - American Society of Civil Engineers KW - Aqualine Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality KW - Geographic information systems KW - Wetlands KW - Restoration KW - Hydraulics KW - Compensation KW - USA, Florida KW - Water resources KW - Man-induced effects KW - Hydraulic structures KW - Hydrologic Models KW - Assessments KW - Vulnerability KW - Geographical Information Systems KW - Canals KW - Habitat improvement KW - Flooding KW - LIDAR KW - GIS KW - SW 5010:Network design KW - AQ 00007:Industrial Effluents KW - Q2 09123:Conservation KW - Q5 08502:Methods and instruments UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1285084129?accountid=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=Reston%2C+VA%3A+ASCE+Proceedings+of+the+2011+World+Environmental+and+Water+Resources+Congress%3B+May+22.26%2C+2011%2C+Palm+Springs%2C+California+%7Cd+20110000&rft.atitle=Using+GIS+to+Optimize+Hydraulic+Analysis+of+Macro+and+Micro+Scale+Flow+Ways+for+Macro+Scale+Wetlands+Restoration-Challenges%2C+Solutions%2C+and+Lessons+Learned&rft.au=Weston%2C+David%3BRowney%2C+Charles%3BVogler%2C+Dan%3BFuxan%2C+Amber%3BKent%2C+Edward&rft.aulast=Weston&rft.aufirst=David&rft.date=2011-05-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=1963&rft.isbn=9780784411735&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Reston%2C+VA%3A+ASCE+Proceedings+of+the+2011+World+Environmental+and+Water+Resources+Congress%3B+May+22.26%2C+2011%2C+Palm+Springs%2C+California+%7Cd+20110000&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/10.1061%2F41173%28414%29206 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2013-02-01 N1 - Last updated - 2017-02-15 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Hydraulic structures; Habitat improvement; Flooding; Man-induced effects; Water resources; Wetlands; Vulnerability; GIS; LIDAR; Canals; Hydraulics; Compensation; Hydrologic Models; Assessments; Geographical Information Systems; USA, Florida DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/41173(414)206 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Using Coping Zones in the Development of Lake Superior Outflow Regulation Alternatives AN - 1285083474; 15357245 AB - A major study is being conducted for the International Joint Commission (IJC) which may shape the way the water levels of the Great Lakes are managed for decades to come. The International Upper Great Lakes Study (IUGLS) was begun in 2007 to investigate the possible factors responsible for recent declining upper Great Lakes levels and to formulate alternative plans for Lake Superior outflow regulation with the goal of providing benefits to existing and emerging interests. Recognizing that improvements to the existing plan for Lake Superior regulation, Plan 1977-A, would be small considering a historic database and that in the upper Great Lakes, the outflow control is at the outlet of the upper most lake in the system, the Study Board has decided to consider an approach to develop alternatives around zones related to an interest's acceptance of a water level range, considering its charge to address climate change and the uncertainties surrounding such hydroclimatic conditions. Each of the Study's six technical work groups is defining coping zones related to a range of levels. Zone A includes water levels within which an interest can thrive, Zone B represents a range within which an interest will begin to experience difficulties, and Zone C levels are those that would result in long-term catastrophic impacts which may result in, for example, the elimination of a species or major disruption of an industry. Alternatives are being formulated with these zones in mind from plans similar in framework to Plan 1977-A to those which involve the placement of additional control structures in Great Lakes connecting channels progressively implemented as conditions transition from one zone to the next. If implemented, this would become part of the fundamental management plan for the upper Great Lakes representing a unique approach and providing a dynamic model dealing with uncertainty for long-term water level management and adaptation. The Study Board will provide its results to the IJC for its consideration at the end of 2011 with final completion of the Study in March 2012. JF - Reston, VA: ASCE Proceedings of the 2011 World Environmental and Water Resources Congress; May 22.26, 2011, Palm Springs, California, d 20110000 AU - Eberhardt, Anthony J AD - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, 7701 Telegraph Road, Alexandria, VA 22315-3868. Y1 - 2011/05// PY - 2011 DA - May 2011 SP - 2656 EP - 2664 PB - American Society of Civil Engineers KW - Aqualine Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality KW - Great Lakes KW - Outflow KW - Water levels KW - Outlets KW - Adaptations KW - Climate change KW - North America, Superior L. KW - Water resources KW - Water Level KW - Channels KW - Shape KW - Lakes KW - Water management KW - North America, Great Lakes KW - Regulations KW - Environment management KW - SW 5010:Network design KW - AQ 00007:Industrial Effluents KW - Q2 09161:General KW - Q5 08505:Prevention and control UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1285083474?accountid=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=Reston%2C+VA%3A+ASCE+Proceedings+of+the+2011+World+Environmental+and+Water+Resources+Congress%3B+May+22.26%2C+2011%2C+Palm+Springs%2C+California+%7Cd+20110000&rft.atitle=Using+Coping+Zones+in+the+Development+of+Lake+Superior+Outflow+Regulation+Alternatives&rft.au=Eberhardt%2C+Anthony+J&rft.aulast=Eberhardt&rft.aufirst=Anthony&rft.date=2011-05-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=2656&rft.isbn=9780784411735&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Reston%2C+VA%3A+ASCE+Proceedings+of+the+2011+World+Environmental+and+Water+Resources+Congress%3B+May+22.26%2C+2011%2C+Palm+Springs%2C+California+%7Cd+20110000&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/10.1061%2F41173%28414%29276 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2013-02-01 N1 - Last updated - 2017-02-15 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Water levels; Adaptations; Water management; Climate change; Water resources; Environment management; Channels; Shape; Lakes; Outlets; Regulations; Water Level; North America, Great Lakes; North America, Superior L. DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/41173(414)276 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Levee System Performance Using Future Risk Analysis Tools AN - 1285082532; 15357210 AB - Through policy, guidance and the use of current software, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has defined a risk analysis process that can identify potential system-wide hydraulic impacts resulting from alterations to a system of levees. However, as was demonstrated through the Hydrologic Engineering Center's (CEIWR-HEC) study of the Sacramento River Flood Control Project (SRFCP), this current procedure can be difficult to follow and implement. Studies such as the SRFCP are being performed using the tool HEC-FDA (Flood Damage Reduction Analysis). Among other things, HEC-FDA develops project performance metrics for comparison of alternatives and levee certification and since 1996 has included the capabilities to perform risk analyses. However, even with these advanced capabilities, HEC-FDA still looks at a system of levees as a number of independent projects. This issue and others raised by the National Research Council, current users of HEC-FDA and CEIWR-HEC have clearly shown that an enhanced version of HEC-FDA needs to include explicit systems analysis capabilities. For this reason, CEIWR-HEC began the development of a new tool to analyze complex riverine systems while implementing the current flood risk analysis and systems requirements. This new tool, currently called HEC-WAT (Watershed Analysis Tool) along with its Flood Risk Management compute option, FRM, is the next generation of CEIWR-HEC's HEC-FDA model. HEC-WAT/FRM will include a systems approach, event-based sampling to enable system modeling, the ability to do scenario and alternative analyses, and will be used nationwide for levee certification, levee assessment, planning and design studies and advance the Corps modeling approach for risk analysis. An initial implementation of the HEC-WAT/FRM is being constructed for the Columbia River Treaty (CRT) 2014/2024 project. This paper will describe the HEC-WAT/FRM and how it will be used to address levee certification and assessment for the CRT study and how it will advance the Corps modeling approach for risk analysis. JF - Reston, VA: ASCE Proceedings of the 2011 World Environmental and Water Resources Congress; May 22.26, 2011, Palm Springs, California, d 20110000 AU - Dunn, Christopher N AU - Baker, Penni R AU - Faber, Beth A AD - Director, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, Hydrologic Engineering Center, 609 Second Street, Davis, CA 95616. Y1 - 2011/05// PY - 2011 DA - May 2011 SP - 2316 EP - 2326 PB - American Society of Civil Engineers KW - Aqualine Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality KW - Levees and dikes KW - Risk management KW - Hydraulics KW - Flood control KW - USA, Columbia R. KW - Water resources KW - Freshwater KW - Watersheds KW - Risks KW - Hydrologic Models KW - Assessments KW - System analysis KW - Floods KW - USA, California, Sacramento R. KW - Sampling KW - Certification KW - River basin management KW - Rivers KW - Levees KW - River discharge KW - Risk KW - Performance Evaluation KW - Q5 08503:Characteristics, behavior and fate KW - SW 5010:Network design KW - AQ 00006:Sewage KW - Q2 09124:Coastal zone management UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1285082532?accountid=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=Reston%2C+VA%3A+ASCE+Proceedings+of+the+2011+World+Environmental+and+Water+Resources+Congress%3B+May+22.26%2C+2011%2C+Palm+Springs%2C+California+%7Cd+20110000&rft.atitle=Levee+System+Performance+Using+Future+Risk+Analysis+Tools&rft.au=Dunn%2C+Christopher+N%3BBaker%2C+Penni+R%3BFaber%2C+Beth+A&rft.aulast=Dunn&rft.aufirst=Christopher&rft.date=2011-05-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=2316&rft.isbn=9780784411735&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Reston%2C+VA%3A+ASCE+Proceedings+of+the+2011+World+Environmental+and+Water+Resources+Congress%3B+May+22.26%2C+2011%2C+Palm+Springs%2C+California+%7Cd+20110000&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/10.1061%2F41173%28414%29241 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2013-02-01 N1 - Last updated - 2017-02-15 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Flood control; System analysis; River discharge; Levees; Water resources; Certification; Watersheds; River basin management; Risks; Rivers; Risk; Performance Evaluation; Hydrologic Models; Assessments; Floods; Sampling; USA, California, Sacramento R.; USA, Columbia R.; Freshwater DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/41173(414)241 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Implementation of Engineer Circular (EC) 1110-2-6067-USACE Process for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Levee System Evaluation AN - 1285082526; 15357209 AB - The final version of EC 1110-2-6067, "USACE Process for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Levee System Evaluation" was released on 31 August, 2010. The EC supersedes draft Engineer Technical Letter (ETL) 1110-2-570, "Certification of Levee Systems for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)" which was issued in September, 2007 and all other related policy memoranda related to "certification". The draft ETL (a) provided interim guidance to Corps offices for their use in supporting the FEMA NFIP, and (b) provided an opportunity to solicit comments and suggestions for improving the content and applicability of the ETL. The review generated more than 1,100 comments which were addressed and incorporated into the EC. This document is applicable for all U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE or Corps) riverine, lake, and coastal National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) levee system evaluations. The purpose is to provide a consolidated document that will guide USACE procedures for levee system evaluations in support of the NFIP as administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). This EC will supplement and clarify existing policy, procedural, and technical guidance and provide an overview of documentation requirements. Technical and procedural guidance in this EC are intended solely for use in USACE process for NFIP levee system evaluation of existing and new levee systems; it is not intended as design guidance. The EC summarizes existing policy and guidance previously distributed among various USACE documents and provides policy and guidance about topics not previously covered in relation to "levee certifications", such as (a) use of "NFIP levee system evaluation" rather than "certification" as it emphasizes the complete levee system's status with regard to requirements of both 44 CFR 65.10 and USACE guidelines, (b) requiring submittal to FEMA of an evaluation report, as opposed to issuing just a "certification" letter, (c) clarification of technical areas to include earthen closures, ice, seismic criteria, channels, and flood fight activities, and (d) requiring a minimum of two feet of freeboard to match FEMA's minimum requirement. This paper will present background and discussions surrounding the development of this guidance and focuses on topics that generated many of the 1100 comments. JF - Reston, VA: ASCE Proceedings of the 2011 World Environmental and Water Resources Congress; May 22.26, 2011, Palm Springs, California, d 20110000 AU - Deering, Michael K AU - Dunn, Christopher N AD - Chief, Senior Hydraulic Engineer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, Hydrologic Engineering Center, 609 Second Street, Davis, CA 95616. Y1 - 2011/05// PY - 2011 DA - May 2011 SP - 2305 EP - 2315 PB - American Society of Civil Engineers KW - Aqualine Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality KW - Floods KW - Levees and dikes KW - Insurance KW - Water resources KW - Freshwater KW - Evaluation KW - Lakes KW - Coastal inlets KW - Certification KW - Policies KW - Levees KW - River discharge KW - Channels KW - Lake ice KW - Reviews KW - Emergencies KW - Standards KW - AQ 00006:Sewage KW - SW 5080:Evaluation, processing and publication KW - Q2 09171:Dynamics of lakes and rivers KW - Q5 08505:Prevention and control UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1285082526?accountid=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=Reston%2C+VA%3A+ASCE+Proceedings+of+the+2011+World+Environmental+and+Water+Resources+Congress%3B+May+22.26%2C+2011%2C+Palm+Springs%2C+California+%7Cd+20110000&rft.atitle=Implementation+of+Engineer+Circular+%28EC%29+1110-2-6067-USACE+Process+for+the+National+Flood+Insurance+Program+%28NFIP%29+Levee+System+Evaluation&rft.au=Deering%2C+Michael+K%3BDunn%2C+Christopher+N&rft.aulast=Deering&rft.aufirst=Michael&rft.date=2011-05-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=2305&rft.isbn=9780784411735&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Reston%2C+VA%3A+ASCE+Proceedings+of+the+2011+World+Environmental+and+Water+Resources+Congress%3B+May+22.26%2C+2011%2C+Palm+Springs%2C+California+%7Cd+20110000&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/10.1061%2F41173%28414%29240 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2013-02-01 N1 - Last updated - 2017-02-15 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Lake ice; Policies; Floods; River discharge; Levees; Water resources; Emergencies; Coastal inlets; Certification; Channels; Evaluation; Lakes; Reviews; Standards; Insurance; Freshwater DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/41173(414)240 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Consequence Estimation for Complex Systems AN - 1285082520; 15357208 AB - HEC-FIA is a stand-alone, GIS-enabled model for estimating economic and other impacts due to levee or dam failures or specified hydrologic events. The software tool can generate required economic and population data for a study area from readily available data sets and use the data to compute urban and agricultural economic flood damage, area inundated, number of structures inundated, population at risk, and loss of life. These results can be used to help describe the transformed, transferred, and residual risk associated with a system of flood protection projects. All damage assessments in HEC-FIA are computed on a structure-by-structure basis using inundated area depth and arrival grids, or hydrograph data. HEC-FIA is also capable of analyzing economic and life safety benefits from various structural and non-structural flood damage reduction measures, including flood warning systems and raising structures. To accomplish the analysis needed for a typical Corps system risk analysis, detailed data can be input into the model, and HEC-FIA can be run iteratively through the HEC-WAT software to estimate annualized damage estimates with uncertainty through monte carlo sampling methods. JF - Reston, VA: ASCE Proceedings of the 2011 World Environmental and Water Resources Congress; May 22.26, 2011, Palm Springs, California, d 20110000 AU - Lehman, William AD - Economist, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute For Water Resources, Hydrologic Engineering Center, 609 Second Street, Davis, CA 95616. Y1 - 2011/05// PY - 2011 DA - May 2011 SP - 2295 EP - 2304 PB - American Society of Civil Engineers KW - Aqualine Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality KW - Estimation KW - Dam failures KW - Hydrology KW - Damage KW - Estimating KW - Statistical analysis KW - Levees KW - Failures KW - Water resources KW - Flood Damage KW - Warning systems KW - Risk KW - Hydrologic Models KW - Assessments KW - Sampling KW - Hydrologic Data KW - Benefits KW - Q5 08503:Characteristics, behavior and fate KW - SW 5010:Network design KW - AQ 00006:Sewage KW - Q2 09161:General UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1285082520?accountid=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=Reston%2C+VA%3A+ASCE+Proceedings+of+the+2011+World+Environmental+and+Water+Resources+Congress%3B+May+22.26%2C+2011%2C+Palm+Springs%2C+California+%7Cd+20110000&rft.atitle=Consequence+Estimation+for+Complex+Systems&rft.au=Lehman%2C+William&rft.aulast=Lehman&rft.aufirst=William&rft.date=2011-05-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=2295&rft.isbn=9780784411735&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Reston%2C+VA%3A+ASCE+Proceedings+of+the+2011+World+Environmental+and+Water+Resources+Congress%3B+May+22.26%2C+2011%2C+Palm+Springs%2C+California+%7Cd+20110000&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/10.1061%2F41173%28414%29239 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2013-02-01 N1 - Last updated - 2017-02-15 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Failures; Levees; Statistical analysis; Water resources; Sampling; Warning systems; Damage; Risk; Hydrologic Models; Assessments; Estimating; Benefits; Flood Damage; Hydrologic Data DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/41173(414)239 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Subsurface evidence for Lake Bonneville fluctuations near Little Granite Mountain, Dugway Proving Ground, UT AN - 1151914406; 2012-096593 AB - Soil materials at a site in the east-central area of Dugway Proving Ground (DPG) were sampled and described during October 2010. The study centered on two pits 280 m apart excavated to a depth of > 6m. Project schedule and safety issues limited field operations to a total of four days, after which the pits were backfilled. The team collected minimally disturbed samples at 20-cm intervals in density-drive cylinders. Field activities also included stratigraphic description, measurement of magnetic susceptibility, and determination of in situ moisture and density. Sediments observed in the study area were interpreted as fine-grained lacustrine and shoreline deposits representing a shallow arm of Lake Bonneville, as well as related alluvial-fan and windblown deposits. Sediment sources were the mountains surrounding the study area: Davis and Little Davis Mountain to the south and southeast; Cedar Mountains to the north, northeast, and northwest; and Little Granite Mountain to the West. Field observations and subsequent laboratory analyses - including grain-size analyses, density, porosity, and saturated hydraulic conductivity - revealed evidence of at least two periods of lacustrine deposition punctuated by subaerial exposure and soil formation. Geophysical surveys, conducted prior to excavation using two electromagnetic-resistivity instruments, provided additional subsurface data. Field and laboratory data contributed to a 3-dimensional model of the site, built using a geologic-conceptual-model option within the Department of Defense Groundwater Modeling System software. JF - Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America AU - Wakeley, Lillian D AU - Broadfoot, Seth W AU - Kelley, Julie R AU - Metheny, Owen M AU - Parkman, Kevin B AU - McKenna, Jason R AU - Berry, Thomas E AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2011/05// PY - 2011 DA - May 2011 SP - 80 PB - Geological Society of America (GSA), Boulder, CO VL - 43 IS - 4 SN - 0016-7592, 0016-7592 KW - United States KW - soils KW - lake-level changes KW - Quaternary KW - geophysical surveys KW - three-dimensional models KW - Lake Bonneville KW - grain size KW - geophysical methods KW - paleolakes KW - Tooele County Utah KW - porosity KW - Cenozoic KW - fluctuations KW - Little Granite Mountain KW - extinct lakes KW - sediments KW - electromagnetic methods KW - surveys KW - Utah KW - hydraulic conductivity KW - Dugway Proving Group KW - 24:Quaternary geology KW - 20:Applied geophysics UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1151914406?accountid=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=Subsurface+evidence+for+Lake+Bonneville+fluctuations+near+Little+Granite+Mountain%2C+Dugway+Proving+Ground%2C+UT&rft.au=Wakeley%2C+Lillian+D%3BBroadfoot%2C+Seth+W%3BKelley%2C+Julie+R%3BMetheny%2C+Owen+M%3BParkman%2C+Kevin+B%3BMcKenna%2C+Jason+R%3BBerry%2C+Thomas+E%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Wakeley&rft.aufirst=Lillian&rft.date=2011-05-01&rft.volume=43&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=80&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, Rocky Mountain Section, 63rd annual meeting; Geological Society of America, Cordilleran Section, 107th annual meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data supplied by the Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO, United States N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - Last updated - 2012-11-15 N1 - CODEN - GAAPBC N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Cenozoic; Dugway Proving Group; electromagnetic methods; extinct lakes; fluctuations; geophysical methods; geophysical surveys; grain size; hydraulic conductivity; Lake Bonneville; lake-level changes; Little Granite Mountain; paleolakes; porosity; Quaternary; sediments; soils; surveys; three-dimensional models; Tooele County Utah; United States; Utah ER - TY - JOUR T1 - The Tahoe-Sierra frontal fault zone visualized and characterized with airborne lidar topography AN - 1151914366; 2012-096542 AB - We use high-resolution bare-earth airborne LiDAR topography to identify, map, characterize, and visualize tectonic geomorphology in densely vegetated mountainous terrain west of Lake Tahoe, California. The bare-earth LiDAR topography reveals active normal faults that displace late-Quaternary alluvium, colluvium, and glacial moraines along 30 km of linear right-stepping range front that comprises the Tahoe-Sierra frontal fault zone (TSFFZ). The LiDAR topography reveals tectonic geomorphic features such as: linear scarps in unconsolidated alluvium, colluvium, and glacial moraines; triangular facets in unconsolidated glacial till; linear side-slope troughs aligned with scarps in moraine crests; antithetic scarps; hanging-wall grabens; and back-titled moraine crests, all of which are not visible in aerial photography due to the dense vegetation. We have developed new techniques that utilize the three-dimensional (3D) LiDAR data to mathematically constrain tectonic net slip displacements of moraine crests and vertical slip of faulted alluvium and colluvium, yielding numerically robust 3D displacement models. Recalculated terrestrial cosmogenic nuclide surface-exposure ages for Tioga (20.7 + or - 2.1 ka) and Tahoe (68.8 + or - 7.4 ka) age moraines at Meeks Bay, California, are used to establish minimum and maximum limiting ages for the faulted late-Pleistocene moraines along the TSFFZ. The limiting ages are coupled with the 3D LiDAR displacement models to constrain the vertical slip rate at twenty locations along the TSFFZ. The right-stepping en echelon range-front segments of the TSFFZ have progressively greater slip rates along strike to the northwest commensurate with greater extension and structural relief in the northern part of the Lake Tahoe basin (LTB). At three locations along the Mt. Tallac segment, the models constrain a vertical slip rate of 0.3 + or - 0.1 mm/yr. At Emerald Bay, near the southern end of the Rubicon Peak segment, the modeled rate is 0.6 + or - 0.1 mm/yr. Further north along the Rubicon Peak segment is the maximum vertical slip rate of 1.5 + or - 0.5 mm/yr. Based on a range of surface-rupture lengths and depths to the base of the seismogenic zone, we estimate the range of potential earthquake moment magnitudes (M) for the TSFFZ to be between 6.3 and 7.1, which represent a substantial seismic hazard to the LTB. JF - Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America AU - Howle, James F AU - Bawden, Gerald W AU - Rose, Ronn S AU - Finkel, Robert C AU - Hunter, Lewis AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2011/05// PY - 2011 DA - May 2011 SP - 71 PB - Geological Society of America (GSA), Boulder, CO VL - 43 IS - 4 SN - 0016-7592, 0016-7592 KW - United States KW - Sierra Nevada KW - laser methods KW - three-dimensional models KW - Rubicon Peak KW - clastic sediments KW - characterization KW - radar methods KW - slip rates KW - till KW - California KW - visualization KW - topography KW - lidar methods KW - Tahoe-Sierra fault zone KW - sediments KW - moraines KW - Lake Tahoe KW - faults KW - fault zones KW - airborne methods KW - 16:Structural geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1151914366?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Abstracts+with+Programs+-+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.atitle=The+Tahoe-Sierra+frontal+fault+zone+visualized+and+characterized+with+airborne+lidar+topography&rft.au=Howle%2C+James+F%3BBawden%2C+Gerald+W%3BRose%2C+Ronn+S%3BFinkel%2C+Robert+C%3BHunter%2C+Lewis%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Howle&rft.aufirst=James&rft.date=2011-05-01&rft.volume=43&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=71&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, Rocky Mountain Section, 63rd annual meeting; Geological Society of America, Cordilleran Section, 107th annual meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data supplied by the Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO, United States N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - Last updated - 2012-11-15 N1 - CODEN - GAAPBC N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - airborne methods; California; characterization; clastic sediments; fault zones; faults; Lake Tahoe; laser methods; lidar methods; moraines; radar methods; Rubicon Peak; sediments; Sierra Nevada; slip rates; Tahoe-Sierra fault zone; three-dimensional models; till; topography; United States; visualization ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). [Part 42 of 50] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). AN - 873134048; 14881-5_0042 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a pipeline and related facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta to a new tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma and to existing terminals in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,380 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Initially, transport capacity would be 700,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil, and ultimately the pipeline would be capable of delivering up to 900,000 bpd from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. 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. It would interconnect with the northern and southern termini of the previously approved 298-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter Keystone Cushing Extension. The project would be placed into service in phases, the Gulf Coast segment in 2011, and the Steele City segment and the Houston Lateral in 2012. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations, each located on a five- to 10-acre site; 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 supplemental draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, alternative routes for the proposed 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability, and new information made available since publication of the draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (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 20,585 acres, including 11,533 acres of native and low quality grassland/rangeland/pastureland, 2,523 acres of forest land, and 5,404 acres of agriculture/cropland. Surface disturbance would affect soils that are both highly erodible and prone to compaction. Approximately 1,351 acres of upland and wetland wildlife habitats would be cleared and then recovered. Seven federally-listed plant species and 14 federally-listed animal species 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. 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: 110125, 353 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 42 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands 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 - Visual Resources 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/873134048?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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 - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 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 (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). [Part 41 of 50] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). AN - 873134046; 14881-5_0041 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a pipeline and related facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta to a new tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma and to existing terminals in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,380 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Initially, transport capacity would be 700,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil, and ultimately the pipeline would be capable of delivering up to 900,000 bpd from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. 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. It would interconnect with the northern and southern termini of the previously approved 298-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter Keystone Cushing Extension. The project would be placed into service in phases, the Gulf Coast segment in 2011, and the Steele City segment and the Houston Lateral in 2012. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations, each located on a five- to 10-acre site; 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 supplemental draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, alternative routes for the proposed 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability, and new information made available since publication of the draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (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 20,585 acres, including 11,533 acres of native and low quality grassland/rangeland/pastureland, 2,523 acres of forest land, and 5,404 acres of agriculture/cropland. Surface disturbance would affect soils that are both highly erodible and prone to compaction. Approximately 1,351 acres of upland and wetland wildlife habitats would be cleared and then recovered. Seven federally-listed plant species and 14 federally-listed animal species 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. 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: 110125, 353 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 41 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands 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 - Visual Resources 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/873134046?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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 - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 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 (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). [Part 40 of 50] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). AN - 873134043; 14881-5_0040 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a pipeline and related facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta to a new tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma and to existing terminals in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,380 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Initially, transport capacity would be 700,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil, and ultimately the pipeline would be capable of delivering up to 900,000 bpd from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. 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. It would interconnect with the northern and southern termini of the previously approved 298-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter Keystone Cushing Extension. The project would be placed into service in phases, the Gulf Coast segment in 2011, and the Steele City segment and the Houston Lateral in 2012. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations, each located on a five- to 10-acre site; 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 supplemental draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, alternative routes for the proposed 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability, and new information made available since publication of the draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (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 20,585 acres, including 11,533 acres of native and low quality grassland/rangeland/pastureland, 2,523 acres of forest land, and 5,404 acres of agriculture/cropland. Surface disturbance would affect soils that are both highly erodible and prone to compaction. Approximately 1,351 acres of upland and wetland wildlife habitats would be cleared and then recovered. Seven federally-listed plant species and 14 federally-listed animal species 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. 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: 110125, 353 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 40 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands 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 - Visual Resources 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/873134043?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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 - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 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 (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). [Part 29 of 50] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). AN - 873134010; 14881-5_0029 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a pipeline and related facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta to a new tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma and to existing terminals in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,380 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Initially, transport capacity would be 700,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil, and ultimately the pipeline would be capable of delivering up to 900,000 bpd from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. 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. It would interconnect with the northern and southern termini of the previously approved 298-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter Keystone Cushing Extension. The project would be placed into service in phases, the Gulf Coast segment in 2011, and the Steele City segment and the Houston Lateral in 2012. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations, each located on a five- to 10-acre site; 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 supplemental draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, alternative routes for the proposed 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability, and new information made available since publication of the draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (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 20,585 acres, including 11,533 acres of native and low quality grassland/rangeland/pastureland, 2,523 acres of forest land, and 5,404 acres of agriculture/cropland. Surface disturbance would affect soils that are both highly erodible and prone to compaction. Approximately 1,351 acres of upland and wetland wildlife habitats would be cleared and then recovered. Seven federally-listed plant species and 14 federally-listed animal species 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. 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: 110125, 353 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 29 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands 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 - Visual Resources 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/873134010?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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 - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 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 (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). [Part 28 of 50] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). AN - 873134007; 14881-5_0028 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a pipeline and related facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta to a new tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma and to existing terminals in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,380 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Initially, transport capacity would be 700,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil, and ultimately the pipeline would be capable of delivering up to 900,000 bpd from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. 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. It would interconnect with the northern and southern termini of the previously approved 298-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter Keystone Cushing Extension. The project would be placed into service in phases, the Gulf Coast segment in 2011, and the Steele City segment and the Houston Lateral in 2012. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations, each located on a five- to 10-acre site; 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 supplemental draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, alternative routes for the proposed 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability, and new information made available since publication of the draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (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 20,585 acres, including 11,533 acres of native and low quality grassland/rangeland/pastureland, 2,523 acres of forest land, and 5,404 acres of agriculture/cropland. Surface disturbance would affect soils that are both highly erodible and prone to compaction. Approximately 1,351 acres of upland and wetland wildlife habitats would be cleared and then recovered. Seven federally-listed plant species and 14 federally-listed animal species 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. 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: 110125, 353 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 28 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands 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 - Visual Resources 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/873134007?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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 - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 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 (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). [Part 6 of 50] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). AN - 873134006; 14881-5_0006 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a pipeline and related facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta to a new tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma and to existing terminals in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,380 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Initially, transport capacity would be 700,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil, and ultimately the pipeline would be capable of delivering up to 900,000 bpd from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. 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. It would interconnect with the northern and southern termini of the previously approved 298-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter Keystone Cushing Extension. The project would be placed into service in phases, the Gulf Coast segment in 2011, and the Steele City segment and the Houston Lateral in 2012. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations, each located on a five- to 10-acre site; 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 supplemental draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, alternative routes for the proposed 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability, and new information made available since publication of the draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (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 20,585 acres, including 11,533 acres of native and low quality grassland/rangeland/pastureland, 2,523 acres of forest land, and 5,404 acres of agriculture/cropland. Surface disturbance would affect soils that are both highly erodible and prone to compaction. Approximately 1,351 acres of upland and wetland wildlife habitats would be cleared and then recovered. Seven federally-listed plant species and 14 federally-listed animal species 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. 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: 110125, 353 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands 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 - Visual Resources 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/873134006?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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 - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 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 (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). [Part 5 of 50] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). AN - 873134005; 14881-5_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a pipeline and related facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta to a new tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma and to existing terminals in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,380 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Initially, transport capacity would be 700,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil, and ultimately the pipeline would be capable of delivering up to 900,000 bpd from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. 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. It would interconnect with the northern and southern termini of the previously approved 298-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter Keystone Cushing Extension. The project would be placed into service in phases, the Gulf Coast segment in 2011, and the Steele City segment and the Houston Lateral in 2012. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations, each located on a five- to 10-acre site; 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 supplemental draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, alternative routes for the proposed 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability, and new information made available since publication of the draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (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 20,585 acres, including 11,533 acres of native and low quality grassland/rangeland/pastureland, 2,523 acres of forest land, and 5,404 acres of agriculture/cropland. Surface disturbance would affect soils that are both highly erodible and prone to compaction. Approximately 1,351 acres of upland and wetland wildlife habitats would be cleared and then recovered. Seven federally-listed plant species and 14 federally-listed animal species 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. 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: 110125, 353 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands 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 - Visual Resources 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/873134005?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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 - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 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 (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). [Part 4 of 50] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). AN - 873134003; 14881-5_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a pipeline and related facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta to a new tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma and to existing terminals in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,380 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Initially, transport capacity would be 700,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil, and ultimately the pipeline would be capable of delivering up to 900,000 bpd from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. 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. It would interconnect with the northern and southern termini of the previously approved 298-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter Keystone Cushing Extension. The project would be placed into service in phases, the Gulf Coast segment in 2011, and the Steele City segment and the Houston Lateral in 2012. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations, each located on a five- to 10-acre site; 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 supplemental draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, alternative routes for the proposed 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability, and new information made available since publication of the draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (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 20,585 acres, including 11,533 acres of native and low quality grassland/rangeland/pastureland, 2,523 acres of forest land, and 5,404 acres of agriculture/cropland. Surface disturbance would affect soils that are both highly erodible and prone to compaction. Approximately 1,351 acres of upland and wetland wildlife habitats would be cleared and then recovered. Seven federally-listed plant species and 14 federally-listed animal species 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. 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: 110125, 353 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands 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 - Visual Resources 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/873134003?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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 - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 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 (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). [Part 2 of 50] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). AN - 873133999; 14881-5_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a pipeline and related facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta to a new tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma and to existing terminals in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,380 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Initially, transport capacity would be 700,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil, and ultimately the pipeline would be capable of delivering up to 900,000 bpd from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. 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. It would interconnect with the northern and southern termini of the previously approved 298-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter Keystone Cushing Extension. The project would be placed into service in phases, the Gulf Coast segment in 2011, and the Steele City segment and the Houston Lateral in 2012. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations, each located on a five- to 10-acre site; 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 supplemental draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, alternative routes for the proposed 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability, and new information made available since publication of the draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (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 20,585 acres, including 11,533 acres of native and low quality grassland/rangeland/pastureland, 2,523 acres of forest land, and 5,404 acres of agriculture/cropland. Surface disturbance would affect soils that are both highly erodible and prone to compaction. Approximately 1,351 acres of upland and wetland wildlife habitats would be cleared and then recovered. Seven federally-listed plant species and 14 federally-listed animal species 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. 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: 110125, 353 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands 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 - Visual Resources 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/873133999?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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 - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 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 (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). [Part 1 of 50] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). AN - 873133997; 14881-5_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a pipeline and related facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta to a new tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma and to existing terminals in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,380 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Initially, transport capacity would be 700,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil, and ultimately the pipeline would be capable of delivering up to 900,000 bpd from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. 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. It would interconnect with the northern and southern termini of the previously approved 298-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter Keystone Cushing Extension. The project would be placed into service in phases, the Gulf Coast segment in 2011, and the Steele City segment and the Houston Lateral in 2012. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations, each located on a five- to 10-acre site; 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 supplemental draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, alternative routes for the proposed 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability, and new information made available since publication of the draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (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 20,585 acres, including 11,533 acres of native and low quality grassland/rangeland/pastureland, 2,523 acres of forest land, and 5,404 acres of agriculture/cropland. Surface disturbance would affect soils that are both highly erodible and prone to compaction. Approximately 1,351 acres of upland and wetland wildlife habitats would be cleared and then recovered. Seven federally-listed plant species and 14 federally-listed animal species 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. 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: 110125, 353 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands 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 - Visual Resources 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/873133997?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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 - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 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 (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). [Part 3 of 50] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). AN - 873133637; 14881-5_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a pipeline and related facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta to a new tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma and to existing terminals in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,380 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Initially, transport capacity would be 700,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil, and ultimately the pipeline would be capable of delivering up to 900,000 bpd from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. 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. It would interconnect with the northern and southern termini of the previously approved 298-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter Keystone Cushing Extension. The project would be placed into service in phases, the Gulf Coast segment in 2011, and the Steele City segment and the Houston Lateral in 2012. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations, each located on a five- to 10-acre site; 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 supplemental draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, alternative routes for the proposed 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability, and new information made available since publication of the draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (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 20,585 acres, including 11,533 acres of native and low quality grassland/rangeland/pastureland, 2,523 acres of forest land, and 5,404 acres of agriculture/cropland. Surface disturbance would affect soils that are both highly erodible and prone to compaction. Approximately 1,351 acres of upland and wetland wildlife habitats would be cleared and then recovered. Seven federally-listed plant species and 14 federally-listed animal species 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. 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: 110125, 353 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands 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 - Visual Resources 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/873133637?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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 - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MD 3 PROJECT PLANNING STUDY, FROM NORTH OF US 50 TO SOUTH OF MD 32, ANNE ARUNDEL AND PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTIES, MARYLAND. [Part 9 of 11] T2 - MD 3 PROJECT PLANNING STUDY, FROM NORTH OF US 50 TO SOUTH OF MD 32, ANNE ARUNDEL AND PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTIES, MARYLAND. AN - 873133549; 14879-3_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the Maryland Route 3 (MD 3) corridor from north of US 50 to south of MD 32 in Anne Arundel and Prince George's counties, Maryland is proposed. The 9.28-mile MD 3 corridor provides a major north-south transportation facility in the southwestern portion of Anne Arundel County and the northeastern portion of Prince George's County. Traffic congestion, inadequate intersections, increased residential and commercial development, and the need for safe pedestrian and bicycle use of the corridor have accelerated the need for improvements to MD 3. A reevaluation of the 2004 draft EIS conducted in 2008 determined that the draft EIS remains valid and no supplemental EIS is required. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. Each build alternative has several interchange options. Alternative 3 would implement a boulevard concept, providing dualization of northbound MD 3 in Prince George's County, with existing southbound MD 3 being converted to a local service road. Three 11-foot lanes would be provided in each direction along the existing alignment through the remainder of the corridor, with continuous 16-foot auxiliary lanes and 10-foot shoulders where appropriate. Alternative 5 would implement a dualization concept as well, utilizing three, 11-foot lanes in each direction along existing MD 3 from US 50 to MD 424, with 16-foot auxiliary lands and 10-foot shoulders where appropriate. Dualization of southbound MD 3 from MD 424 to MD 32 would be included as part of the design, with existing northbound MD 3 converted to a local service road. The selected alternative is Alternative 3 with MD 450 interchange option A/B, Crawford/Cronson Boulevards interchange option A, MD 424 continuous flow intersection, Waugh Chapel/Reidel Road interchange option B modified, and MD 175/Millersville Road interchange option B modified. Construction costs are estimated at $651 million to $669 million. Right-of-way costs are estimated at $310 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve vehicular and pedestrian safety and travel within the MD 3 corridor, enhancing traffic flows on this important link in the Baltimore/Washington/Annapolis region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way requirements for the selected alternative would result in the displacement of 10 residences, 15 businesses, 11.1 acres of wetlands, and 82.5 acres of forested land. The facility would traverse eight streams and 50.3 acres of floodplain. Construction workers would encounter at least 13 hazardous materials sites. Fifteen residences would experience traffic-generated noise levels equal to or in excess of federal standards during the design year (2025). LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0442D, Volume 28, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110123, 538 pages and maps, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Creeks KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Maryland KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133549?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MD+3+PROJECT+PLANNING+STUDY%2C+FROM+NORTH+OF+US+50+TO+SOUTH+OF+MD+32%2C+ANNE+ARUNDEL+AND+PRINCE+GEORGE%27S+COUNTIES%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=MD+3+PROJECT+PLANNING+STUDY%2C+FROM+NORTH+OF+US+50+TO+SOUTH+OF+MD+32%2C+ANNE+ARUNDEL+AND+PRINCE+GEORGE%27S+COUNTIES%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Baltimore, Maryland; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MD 3 PROJECT PLANNING STUDY, FROM NORTH OF US 50 TO SOUTH OF MD 32, ANNE ARUNDEL AND PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTIES, MARYLAND. [Part 8 of 11] T2 - MD 3 PROJECT PLANNING STUDY, FROM NORTH OF US 50 TO SOUTH OF MD 32, ANNE ARUNDEL AND PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTIES, MARYLAND. AN - 873133547; 14879-3_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the Maryland Route 3 (MD 3) corridor from north of US 50 to south of MD 32 in Anne Arundel and Prince George's counties, Maryland is proposed. The 9.28-mile MD 3 corridor provides a major north-south transportation facility in the southwestern portion of Anne Arundel County and the northeastern portion of Prince George's County. Traffic congestion, inadequate intersections, increased residential and commercial development, and the need for safe pedestrian and bicycle use of the corridor have accelerated the need for improvements to MD 3. A reevaluation of the 2004 draft EIS conducted in 2008 determined that the draft EIS remains valid and no supplemental EIS is required. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. Each build alternative has several interchange options. Alternative 3 would implement a boulevard concept, providing dualization of northbound MD 3 in Prince George's County, with existing southbound MD 3 being converted to a local service road. Three 11-foot lanes would be provided in each direction along the existing alignment through the remainder of the corridor, with continuous 16-foot auxiliary lanes and 10-foot shoulders where appropriate. Alternative 5 would implement a dualization concept as well, utilizing three, 11-foot lanes in each direction along existing MD 3 from US 50 to MD 424, with 16-foot auxiliary lands and 10-foot shoulders where appropriate. Dualization of southbound MD 3 from MD 424 to MD 32 would be included as part of the design, with existing northbound MD 3 converted to a local service road. The selected alternative is Alternative 3 with MD 450 interchange option A/B, Crawford/Cronson Boulevards interchange option A, MD 424 continuous flow intersection, Waugh Chapel/Reidel Road interchange option B modified, and MD 175/Millersville Road interchange option B modified. Construction costs are estimated at $651 million to $669 million. Right-of-way costs are estimated at $310 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve vehicular and pedestrian safety and travel within the MD 3 corridor, enhancing traffic flows on this important link in the Baltimore/Washington/Annapolis region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way requirements for the selected alternative would result in the displacement of 10 residences, 15 businesses, 11.1 acres of wetlands, and 82.5 acres of forested land. The facility would traverse eight streams and 50.3 acres of floodplain. Construction workers would encounter at least 13 hazardous materials sites. Fifteen residences would experience traffic-generated noise levels equal to or in excess of federal standards during the design year (2025). LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0442D, Volume 28, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110123, 538 pages and maps, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Creeks KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Maryland KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133547?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MD+3+PROJECT+PLANNING+STUDY%2C+FROM+NORTH+OF+US+50+TO+SOUTH+OF+MD+32%2C+ANNE+ARUNDEL+AND+PRINCE+GEORGE%27S+COUNTIES%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=MD+3+PROJECT+PLANNING+STUDY%2C+FROM+NORTH+OF+US+50+TO+SOUTH+OF+MD+32%2C+ANNE+ARUNDEL+AND+PRINCE+GEORGE%27S+COUNTIES%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Baltimore, Maryland; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MD 3 PROJECT PLANNING STUDY, FROM NORTH OF US 50 TO SOUTH OF MD 32, ANNE ARUNDEL AND PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTIES, MARYLAND. [Part 1 of 11] T2 - MD 3 PROJECT PLANNING STUDY, FROM NORTH OF US 50 TO SOUTH OF MD 32, ANNE ARUNDEL AND PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTIES, MARYLAND. AN - 873132961; 14879-3_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the Maryland Route 3 (MD 3) corridor from north of US 50 to south of MD 32 in Anne Arundel and Prince George's counties, Maryland is proposed. The 9.28-mile MD 3 corridor provides a major north-south transportation facility in the southwestern portion of Anne Arundel County and the northeastern portion of Prince George's County. Traffic congestion, inadequate intersections, increased residential and commercial development, and the need for safe pedestrian and bicycle use of the corridor have accelerated the need for improvements to MD 3. A reevaluation of the 2004 draft EIS conducted in 2008 determined that the draft EIS remains valid and no supplemental EIS is required. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. Each build alternative has several interchange options. Alternative 3 would implement a boulevard concept, providing dualization of northbound MD 3 in Prince George's County, with existing southbound MD 3 being converted to a local service road. Three 11-foot lanes would be provided in each direction along the existing alignment through the remainder of the corridor, with continuous 16-foot auxiliary lanes and 10-foot shoulders where appropriate. Alternative 5 would implement a dualization concept as well, utilizing three, 11-foot lanes in each direction along existing MD 3 from US 50 to MD 424, with 16-foot auxiliary lands and 10-foot shoulders where appropriate. Dualization of southbound MD 3 from MD 424 to MD 32 would be included as part of the design, with existing northbound MD 3 converted to a local service road. The selected alternative is Alternative 3 with MD 450 interchange option A/B, Crawford/Cronson Boulevards interchange option A, MD 424 continuous flow intersection, Waugh Chapel/Reidel Road interchange option B modified, and MD 175/Millersville Road interchange option B modified. Construction costs are estimated at $651 million to $669 million. Right-of-way costs are estimated at $310 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve vehicular and pedestrian safety and travel within the MD 3 corridor, enhancing traffic flows on this important link in the Baltimore/Washington/Annapolis region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way requirements for the selected alternative would result in the displacement of 10 residences, 15 businesses, 11.1 acres of wetlands, and 82.5 acres of forested land. The facility would traverse eight streams and 50.3 acres of floodplain. Construction workers would encounter at least 13 hazardous materials sites. Fifteen residences would experience traffic-generated noise levels equal to or in excess of federal standards during the design year (2025). LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0442D, Volume 28, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110123, 538 pages and maps, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Creeks KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Maryland KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132961?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MD+3+PROJECT+PLANNING+STUDY%2C+FROM+NORTH+OF+US+50+TO+SOUTH+OF+MD+32%2C+ANNE+ARUNDEL+AND+PRINCE+GEORGE%27S+COUNTIES%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=MD+3+PROJECT+PLANNING+STUDY%2C+FROM+NORTH+OF+US+50+TO+SOUTH+OF+MD+32%2C+ANNE+ARUNDEL+AND+PRINCE+GEORGE%27S+COUNTIES%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Baltimore, Maryland; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BANGERTER 600 WEST PROJECT, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 8 of 15] T2 - BANGERTER 600 WEST PROJECT, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 873132903; 14878-2_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 with access only at major signalized intersections, 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 because it carries large volumes of traffic (39,000 cars per day) within the study area between I-15 and the suburban communities in the southwestern Salt Lake Valley. 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 are analyzed in this draft EIS: a No Action Alternative, the 600 West Interchange with No Access at 200 West Alternative (Alternative 4E), the 600 West Interchange with Right Turns Only at 200 West Alternative (Alternative 4F), and the 600 West Interchange with 200 West Signal and No Left Turn Alternative (Alternative 4G). 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 the 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. The Utah Department of Transportation has identified the 600 West Interchange with Right Turns Only at 200 West Alterative (Alternative 4F) as their preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Improvements to Bangerter Highway in the area of 600 West would help meet the projected travel demand in 2030 and improve safety and regional mobility. 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 business-related impacts. 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: 110122, 510 pages and maps, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-11-01-D 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/873132903?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&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 - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BANGERTER 600 WEST PROJECT, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 7 of 15] T2 - BANGERTER 600 WEST PROJECT, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 873132902; 14878-2_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 with access only at major signalized intersections, 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 because it carries large volumes of traffic (39,000 cars per day) within the study area between I-15 and the suburban communities in the southwestern Salt Lake Valley. 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 are analyzed in this draft EIS: a No Action Alternative, the 600 West Interchange with No Access at 200 West Alternative (Alternative 4E), the 600 West Interchange with Right Turns Only at 200 West Alternative (Alternative 4F), and the 600 West Interchange with 200 West Signal and No Left Turn Alternative (Alternative 4G). 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 the 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. The Utah Department of Transportation has identified the 600 West Interchange with Right Turns Only at 200 West Alterative (Alternative 4F) as their preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Improvements to Bangerter Highway in the area of 600 West would help meet the projected travel demand in 2030 and improve safety and regional mobility. 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 business-related impacts. 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: 110122, 510 pages and maps, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-11-01-D 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/873132902?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&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 - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BANGERTER 600 WEST PROJECT, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 6 of 15] T2 - BANGERTER 600 WEST PROJECT, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 873132895; 14878-2_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 with access only at major signalized intersections, 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 because it carries large volumes of traffic (39,000 cars per day) within the study area between I-15 and the suburban communities in the southwestern Salt Lake Valley. 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 are analyzed in this draft EIS: a No Action Alternative, the 600 West Interchange with No Access at 200 West Alternative (Alternative 4E), the 600 West Interchange with Right Turns Only at 200 West Alternative (Alternative 4F), and the 600 West Interchange with 200 West Signal and No Left Turn Alternative (Alternative 4G). 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 the 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. The Utah Department of Transportation has identified the 600 West Interchange with Right Turns Only at 200 West Alterative (Alternative 4F) as their preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Improvements to Bangerter Highway in the area of 600 West would help meet the projected travel demand in 2030 and improve safety and regional mobility. 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 business-related impacts. 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: 110122, 510 pages and maps, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-11-01-D 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/873132895?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&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 - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BANGERTER 600 WEST PROJECT, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 5 of 15] T2 - BANGERTER 600 WEST PROJECT, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 873132889; 14878-2_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 with access only at major signalized intersections, 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 because it carries large volumes of traffic (39,000 cars per day) within the study area between I-15 and the suburban communities in the southwestern Salt Lake Valley. 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 are analyzed in this draft EIS: a No Action Alternative, the 600 West Interchange with No Access at 200 West Alternative (Alternative 4E), the 600 West Interchange with Right Turns Only at 200 West Alternative (Alternative 4F), and the 600 West Interchange with 200 West Signal and No Left Turn Alternative (Alternative 4G). 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 the 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. The Utah Department of Transportation has identified the 600 West Interchange with Right Turns Only at 200 West Alterative (Alternative 4F) as their preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Improvements to Bangerter Highway in the area of 600 West would help meet the projected travel demand in 2030 and improve safety and regional mobility. 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 business-related impacts. 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: 110122, 510 pages and maps, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-11-01-D 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/873132889?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&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 - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BANGERTER 600 WEST PROJECT, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 2 of 15] T2 - BANGERTER 600 WEST PROJECT, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 873132880; 14878-2_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 with access only at major signalized intersections, 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 because it carries large volumes of traffic (39,000 cars per day) within the study area between I-15 and the suburban communities in the southwestern Salt Lake Valley. 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 are analyzed in this draft EIS: a No Action Alternative, the 600 West Interchange with No Access at 200 West Alternative (Alternative 4E), the 600 West Interchange with Right Turns Only at 200 West Alternative (Alternative 4F), and the 600 West Interchange with 200 West Signal and No Left Turn Alternative (Alternative 4G). 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 the 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. The Utah Department of Transportation has identified the 600 West Interchange with Right Turns Only at 200 West Alterative (Alternative 4F) as their preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Improvements to Bangerter Highway in the area of 600 West would help meet the projected travel demand in 2030 and improve safety and regional mobility. 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 business-related impacts. 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: 110122, 510 pages and maps, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-11-01-D 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/873132880?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&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 - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 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 (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). [Part 31 of 50] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). AN - 873132679; 14881-5_0031 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a pipeline and related facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta to a new tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma and to existing terminals in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,380 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Initially, transport capacity would be 700,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil, and ultimately the pipeline would be capable of delivering up to 900,000 bpd from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. 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. It would interconnect with the northern and southern termini of the previously approved 298-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter Keystone Cushing Extension. The project would be placed into service in phases, the Gulf Coast segment in 2011, and the Steele City segment and the Houston Lateral in 2012. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations, each located on a five- to 10-acre site; 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 supplemental draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, alternative routes for the proposed 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability, and new information made available since publication of the draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (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 20,585 acres, including 11,533 acres of native and low quality grassland/rangeland/pastureland, 2,523 acres of forest land, and 5,404 acres of agriculture/cropland. Surface disturbance would affect soils that are both highly erodible and prone to compaction. Approximately 1,351 acres of upland and wetland wildlife habitats would be cleared and then recovered. Seven federally-listed plant species and 14 federally-listed animal species 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. 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: 110125, 353 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 31 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands 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 - Visual Resources 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/873132679?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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 - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 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 (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). [Part 13 of 50] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). AN - 873132637; 14881-5_0013 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a pipeline and related facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta to a new tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma and to existing terminals in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,380 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Initially, transport capacity would be 700,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil, and ultimately the pipeline would be capable of delivering up to 900,000 bpd from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. 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. It would interconnect with the northern and southern termini of the previously approved 298-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter Keystone Cushing Extension. The project would be placed into service in phases, the Gulf Coast segment in 2011, and the Steele City segment and the Houston Lateral in 2012. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations, each located on a five- to 10-acre site; 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 supplemental draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, alternative routes for the proposed 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability, and new information made available since publication of the draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (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 20,585 acres, including 11,533 acres of native and low quality grassland/rangeland/pastureland, 2,523 acres of forest land, and 5,404 acres of agriculture/cropland. Surface disturbance would affect soils that are both highly erodible and prone to compaction. Approximately 1,351 acres of upland and wetland wildlife habitats would be cleared and then recovered. Seven federally-listed plant species and 14 federally-listed animal species 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. 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: 110125, 353 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands 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 - Visual Resources 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/873132637?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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 - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 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 (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). [Part 12 of 50] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). AN - 873132628; 14881-5_0012 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a pipeline and related facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta to a new tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma and to existing terminals in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,380 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Initially, transport capacity would be 700,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil, and ultimately the pipeline would be capable of delivering up to 900,000 bpd from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. 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. It would interconnect with the northern and southern termini of the previously approved 298-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter Keystone Cushing Extension. The project would be placed into service in phases, the Gulf Coast segment in 2011, and the Steele City segment and the Houston Lateral in 2012. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations, each located on a five- to 10-acre site; 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 supplemental draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, alternative routes for the proposed 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability, and new information made available since publication of the draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (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 20,585 acres, including 11,533 acres of native and low quality grassland/rangeland/pastureland, 2,523 acres of forest land, and 5,404 acres of agriculture/cropland. Surface disturbance would affect soils that are both highly erodible and prone to compaction. Approximately 1,351 acres of upland and wetland wildlife habitats would be cleared and then recovered. Seven federally-listed plant species and 14 federally-listed animal species 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. 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: 110125, 353 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands 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 - Visual Resources 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/873132628?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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 - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 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 (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). [Part 11 of 50] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). AN - 873132616; 14881-5_0011 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a pipeline and related facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta to a new tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma and to existing terminals in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,380 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Initially, transport capacity would be 700,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil, and ultimately the pipeline would be capable of delivering up to 900,000 bpd from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. 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. It would interconnect with the northern and southern termini of the previously approved 298-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter Keystone Cushing Extension. The project would be placed into service in phases, the Gulf Coast segment in 2011, and the Steele City segment and the Houston Lateral in 2012. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations, each located on a five- to 10-acre site; 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 supplemental draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, alternative routes for the proposed 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability, and new information made available since publication of the draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (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 20,585 acres, including 11,533 acres of native and low quality grassland/rangeland/pastureland, 2,523 acres of forest land, and 5,404 acres of agriculture/cropland. Surface disturbance would affect soils that are both highly erodible and prone to compaction. Approximately 1,351 acres of upland and wetland wildlife habitats would be cleared and then recovered. Seven federally-listed plant species and 14 federally-listed animal species 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. 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: 110125, 353 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands 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 - Visual Resources 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/873132616?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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 - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 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 (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). [Part 10 of 50] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). AN - 873132607; 14881-5_0010 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a pipeline and related facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta to a new tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma and to existing terminals in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,380 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Initially, transport capacity would be 700,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil, and ultimately the pipeline would be capable of delivering up to 900,000 bpd from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. 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. It would interconnect with the northern and southern termini of the previously approved 298-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter Keystone Cushing Extension. The project would be placed into service in phases, the Gulf Coast segment in 2011, and the Steele City segment and the Houston Lateral in 2012. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations, each located on a five- to 10-acre site; 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 supplemental draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, alternative routes for the proposed 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability, and new information made available since publication of the draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (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 20,585 acres, including 11,533 acres of native and low quality grassland/rangeland/pastureland, 2,523 acres of forest land, and 5,404 acres of agriculture/cropland. Surface disturbance would affect soils that are both highly erodible and prone to compaction. Approximately 1,351 acres of upland and wetland wildlife habitats would be cleared and then recovered. Seven federally-listed plant species and 14 federally-listed animal species 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. 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: 110125, 353 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands 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 - Visual Resources 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/873132607?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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 - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BANGERTER 600 WEST PROJECT, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 15 of 15] T2 - BANGERTER 600 WEST PROJECT, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 873132556; 14878-2_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 with access only at major signalized intersections, 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 because it carries large volumes of traffic (39,000 cars per day) within the study area between I-15 and the suburban communities in the southwestern Salt Lake Valley. 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 are analyzed in this draft EIS: a No Action Alternative, the 600 West Interchange with No Access at 200 West Alternative (Alternative 4E), the 600 West Interchange with Right Turns Only at 200 West Alternative (Alternative 4F), and the 600 West Interchange with 200 West Signal and No Left Turn Alternative (Alternative 4G). 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 the 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. The Utah Department of Transportation has identified the 600 West Interchange with Right Turns Only at 200 West Alterative (Alternative 4F) as their preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Improvements to Bangerter Highway in the area of 600 West would help meet the projected travel demand in 2030 and improve safety and regional mobility. 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 business-related impacts. 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: 110122, 510 pages and maps, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-11-01-D 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/873132556?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&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 - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BANGERTER 600 WEST PROJECT, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 14 of 15] T2 - BANGERTER 600 WEST PROJECT, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 873132547; 14878-2_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 with access only at major signalized intersections, 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 because it carries large volumes of traffic (39,000 cars per day) within the study area between I-15 and the suburban communities in the southwestern Salt Lake Valley. 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 are analyzed in this draft EIS: a No Action Alternative, the 600 West Interchange with No Access at 200 West Alternative (Alternative 4E), the 600 West Interchange with Right Turns Only at 200 West Alternative (Alternative 4F), and the 600 West Interchange with 200 West Signal and No Left Turn Alternative (Alternative 4G). 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 the 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. The Utah Department of Transportation has identified the 600 West Interchange with Right Turns Only at 200 West Alterative (Alternative 4F) as their preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Improvements to Bangerter Highway in the area of 600 West would help meet the projected travel demand in 2030 and improve safety and regional mobility. 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 business-related impacts. 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: 110122, 510 pages and maps, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-11-01-D 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/873132547?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&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 - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BANGERTER 600 WEST PROJECT, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 13 of 15] T2 - BANGERTER 600 WEST PROJECT, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 873132537; 14878-2_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 with access only at major signalized intersections, 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 because it carries large volumes of traffic (39,000 cars per day) within the study area between I-15 and the suburban communities in the southwestern Salt Lake Valley. 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 are analyzed in this draft EIS: a No Action Alternative, the 600 West Interchange with No Access at 200 West Alternative (Alternative 4E), the 600 West Interchange with Right Turns Only at 200 West Alternative (Alternative 4F), and the 600 West Interchange with 200 West Signal and No Left Turn Alternative (Alternative 4G). 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 the 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. The Utah Department of Transportation has identified the 600 West Interchange with Right Turns Only at 200 West Alterative (Alternative 4F) as their preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Improvements to Bangerter Highway in the area of 600 West would help meet the projected travel demand in 2030 and improve safety and regional mobility. 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 business-related impacts. 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: 110122, 510 pages and maps, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-11-01-D 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/873132537?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&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 - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BANGERTER 600 WEST PROJECT, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 12 of 15] T2 - BANGERTER 600 WEST PROJECT, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 873132529; 14878-2_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 with access only at major signalized intersections, 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 because it carries large volumes of traffic (39,000 cars per day) within the study area between I-15 and the suburban communities in the southwestern Salt Lake Valley. 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 are analyzed in this draft EIS: a No Action Alternative, the 600 West Interchange with No Access at 200 West Alternative (Alternative 4E), the 600 West Interchange with Right Turns Only at 200 West Alternative (Alternative 4F), and the 600 West Interchange with 200 West Signal and No Left Turn Alternative (Alternative 4G). 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 the 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. The Utah Department of Transportation has identified the 600 West Interchange with Right Turns Only at 200 West Alterative (Alternative 4F) as their preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Improvements to Bangerter Highway in the area of 600 West would help meet the projected travel demand in 2030 and improve safety and regional mobility. 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 business-related impacts. 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: 110122, 510 pages and maps, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-11-01-D 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/873132529?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&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 - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BANGERTER 600 WEST PROJECT, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 11 of 15] T2 - BANGERTER 600 WEST PROJECT, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 873132523; 14878-2_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 with access only at major signalized intersections, 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 because it carries large volumes of traffic (39,000 cars per day) within the study area between I-15 and the suburban communities in the southwestern Salt Lake Valley. 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 are analyzed in this draft EIS: a No Action Alternative, the 600 West Interchange with No Access at 200 West Alternative (Alternative 4E), the 600 West Interchange with Right Turns Only at 200 West Alternative (Alternative 4F), and the 600 West Interchange with 200 West Signal and No Left Turn Alternative (Alternative 4G). 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 the 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. The Utah Department of Transportation has identified the 600 West Interchange with Right Turns Only at 200 West Alterative (Alternative 4F) as their preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Improvements to Bangerter Highway in the area of 600 West would help meet the projected travel demand in 2030 and improve safety and regional mobility. 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 business-related impacts. 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: 110122, 510 pages and maps, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-11-01-D 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/873132523?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&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 - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BANGERTER 600 WEST PROJECT, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 10 of 15] T2 - BANGERTER 600 WEST PROJECT, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 873132518; 14878-2_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 with access only at major signalized intersections, 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 because it carries large volumes of traffic (39,000 cars per day) within the study area between I-15 and the suburban communities in the southwestern Salt Lake Valley. 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 are analyzed in this draft EIS: a No Action Alternative, the 600 West Interchange with No Access at 200 West Alternative (Alternative 4E), the 600 West Interchange with Right Turns Only at 200 West Alternative (Alternative 4F), and the 600 West Interchange with 200 West Signal and No Left Turn Alternative (Alternative 4G). 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 the 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. The Utah Department of Transportation has identified the 600 West Interchange with Right Turns Only at 200 West Alterative (Alternative 4F) as their preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Improvements to Bangerter Highway in the area of 600 West would help meet the projected travel demand in 2030 and improve safety and regional mobility. 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 business-related impacts. 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: 110122, 510 pages and maps, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-11-01-D 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/873132518?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&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 - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MD 3 PROJECT PLANNING STUDY, FROM NORTH OF US 50 TO SOUTH OF MD 32, ANNE ARUNDEL AND PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTIES, MARYLAND. [Part 6 of 11] T2 - MD 3 PROJECT PLANNING STUDY, FROM NORTH OF US 50 TO SOUTH OF MD 32, ANNE ARUNDEL AND PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTIES, MARYLAND. AN - 873132126; 14879-3_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the Maryland Route 3 (MD 3) corridor from north of US 50 to south of MD 32 in Anne Arundel and Prince George's counties, Maryland is proposed. The 9.28-mile MD 3 corridor provides a major north-south transportation facility in the southwestern portion of Anne Arundel County and the northeastern portion of Prince George's County. Traffic congestion, inadequate intersections, increased residential and commercial development, and the need for safe pedestrian and bicycle use of the corridor have accelerated the need for improvements to MD 3. A reevaluation of the 2004 draft EIS conducted in 2008 determined that the draft EIS remains valid and no supplemental EIS is required. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. Each build alternative has several interchange options. Alternative 3 would implement a boulevard concept, providing dualization of northbound MD 3 in Prince George's County, with existing southbound MD 3 being converted to a local service road. Three 11-foot lanes would be provided in each direction along the existing alignment through the remainder of the corridor, with continuous 16-foot auxiliary lanes and 10-foot shoulders where appropriate. Alternative 5 would implement a dualization concept as well, utilizing three, 11-foot lanes in each direction along existing MD 3 from US 50 to MD 424, with 16-foot auxiliary lands and 10-foot shoulders where appropriate. Dualization of southbound MD 3 from MD 424 to MD 32 would be included as part of the design, with existing northbound MD 3 converted to a local service road. The selected alternative is Alternative 3 with MD 450 interchange option A/B, Crawford/Cronson Boulevards interchange option A, MD 424 continuous flow intersection, Waugh Chapel/Reidel Road interchange option B modified, and MD 175/Millersville Road interchange option B modified. Construction costs are estimated at $651 million to $669 million. Right-of-way costs are estimated at $310 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve vehicular and pedestrian safety and travel within the MD 3 corridor, enhancing traffic flows on this important link in the Baltimore/Washington/Annapolis region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way requirements for the selected alternative would result in the displacement of 10 residences, 15 businesses, 11.1 acres of wetlands, and 82.5 acres of forested land. The facility would traverse eight streams and 50.3 acres of floodplain. Construction workers would encounter at least 13 hazardous materials sites. Fifteen residences would experience traffic-generated noise levels equal to or in excess of federal standards during the design year (2025). LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0442D, Volume 28, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110123, 538 pages and maps, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Creeks KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Maryland KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132126?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MD+3+PROJECT+PLANNING+STUDY%2C+FROM+NORTH+OF+US+50+TO+SOUTH+OF+MD+32%2C+ANNE+ARUNDEL+AND+PRINCE+GEORGE%27S+COUNTIES%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=MD+3+PROJECT+PLANNING+STUDY%2C+FROM+NORTH+OF+US+50+TO+SOUTH+OF+MD+32%2C+ANNE+ARUNDEL+AND+PRINCE+GEORGE%27S+COUNTIES%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Baltimore, Maryland; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MD 3 PROJECT PLANNING STUDY, FROM NORTH OF US 50 TO SOUTH OF MD 32, ANNE ARUNDEL AND PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTIES, MARYLAND. [Part 5 of 11] T2 - MD 3 PROJECT PLANNING STUDY, FROM NORTH OF US 50 TO SOUTH OF MD 32, ANNE ARUNDEL AND PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTIES, MARYLAND. AN - 873132122; 14879-3_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the Maryland Route 3 (MD 3) corridor from north of US 50 to south of MD 32 in Anne Arundel and Prince George's counties, Maryland is proposed. The 9.28-mile MD 3 corridor provides a major north-south transportation facility in the southwestern portion of Anne Arundel County and the northeastern portion of Prince George's County. Traffic congestion, inadequate intersections, increased residential and commercial development, and the need for safe pedestrian and bicycle use of the corridor have accelerated the need for improvements to MD 3. A reevaluation of the 2004 draft EIS conducted in 2008 determined that the draft EIS remains valid and no supplemental EIS is required. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. Each build alternative has several interchange options. Alternative 3 would implement a boulevard concept, providing dualization of northbound MD 3 in Prince George's County, with existing southbound MD 3 being converted to a local service road. Three 11-foot lanes would be provided in each direction along the existing alignment through the remainder of the corridor, with continuous 16-foot auxiliary lanes and 10-foot shoulders where appropriate. Alternative 5 would implement a dualization concept as well, utilizing three, 11-foot lanes in each direction along existing MD 3 from US 50 to MD 424, with 16-foot auxiliary lands and 10-foot shoulders where appropriate. Dualization of southbound MD 3 from MD 424 to MD 32 would be included as part of the design, with existing northbound MD 3 converted to a local service road. The selected alternative is Alternative 3 with MD 450 interchange option A/B, Crawford/Cronson Boulevards interchange option A, MD 424 continuous flow intersection, Waugh Chapel/Reidel Road interchange option B modified, and MD 175/Millersville Road interchange option B modified. Construction costs are estimated at $651 million to $669 million. Right-of-way costs are estimated at $310 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve vehicular and pedestrian safety and travel within the MD 3 corridor, enhancing traffic flows on this important link in the Baltimore/Washington/Annapolis region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way requirements for the selected alternative would result in the displacement of 10 residences, 15 businesses, 11.1 acres of wetlands, and 82.5 acres of forested land. The facility would traverse eight streams and 50.3 acres of floodplain. Construction workers would encounter at least 13 hazardous materials sites. Fifteen residences would experience traffic-generated noise levels equal to or in excess of federal standards during the design year (2025). LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0442D, Volume 28, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110123, 538 pages and maps, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Creeks KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Maryland KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132122?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MD+3+PROJECT+PLANNING+STUDY%2C+FROM+NORTH+OF+US+50+TO+SOUTH+OF+MD+32%2C+ANNE+ARUNDEL+AND+PRINCE+GEORGE%27S+COUNTIES%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=MD+3+PROJECT+PLANNING+STUDY%2C+FROM+NORTH+OF+US+50+TO+SOUTH+OF+MD+32%2C+ANNE+ARUNDEL+AND+PRINCE+GEORGE%27S+COUNTIES%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Baltimore, Maryland; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MD 3 PROJECT PLANNING STUDY, FROM NORTH OF US 50 TO SOUTH OF MD 32, ANNE ARUNDEL AND PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTIES, MARYLAND. [Part 4 of 11] T2 - MD 3 PROJECT PLANNING STUDY, FROM NORTH OF US 50 TO SOUTH OF MD 32, ANNE ARUNDEL AND PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTIES, MARYLAND. AN - 873132117; 14879-3_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the Maryland Route 3 (MD 3) corridor from north of US 50 to south of MD 32 in Anne Arundel and Prince George's counties, Maryland is proposed. The 9.28-mile MD 3 corridor provides a major north-south transportation facility in the southwestern portion of Anne Arundel County and the northeastern portion of Prince George's County. Traffic congestion, inadequate intersections, increased residential and commercial development, and the need for safe pedestrian and bicycle use of the corridor have accelerated the need for improvements to MD 3. A reevaluation of the 2004 draft EIS conducted in 2008 determined that the draft EIS remains valid and no supplemental EIS is required. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. Each build alternative has several interchange options. Alternative 3 would implement a boulevard concept, providing dualization of northbound MD 3 in Prince George's County, with existing southbound MD 3 being converted to a local service road. Three 11-foot lanes would be provided in each direction along the existing alignment through the remainder of the corridor, with continuous 16-foot auxiliary lanes and 10-foot shoulders where appropriate. Alternative 5 would implement a dualization concept as well, utilizing three, 11-foot lanes in each direction along existing MD 3 from US 50 to MD 424, with 16-foot auxiliary lands and 10-foot shoulders where appropriate. Dualization of southbound MD 3 from MD 424 to MD 32 would be included as part of the design, with existing northbound MD 3 converted to a local service road. The selected alternative is Alternative 3 with MD 450 interchange option A/B, Crawford/Cronson Boulevards interchange option A, MD 424 continuous flow intersection, Waugh Chapel/Reidel Road interchange option B modified, and MD 175/Millersville Road interchange option B modified. Construction costs are estimated at $651 million to $669 million. Right-of-way costs are estimated at $310 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve vehicular and pedestrian safety and travel within the MD 3 corridor, enhancing traffic flows on this important link in the Baltimore/Washington/Annapolis region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way requirements for the selected alternative would result in the displacement of 10 residences, 15 businesses, 11.1 acres of wetlands, and 82.5 acres of forested land. The facility would traverse eight streams and 50.3 acres of floodplain. Construction workers would encounter at least 13 hazardous materials sites. Fifteen residences would experience traffic-generated noise levels equal to or in excess of federal standards during the design year (2025). LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0442D, Volume 28, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110123, 538 pages and maps, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Creeks KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Maryland KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132117?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MD+3+PROJECT+PLANNING+STUDY%2C+FROM+NORTH+OF+US+50+TO+SOUTH+OF+MD+32%2C+ANNE+ARUNDEL+AND+PRINCE+GEORGE%27S+COUNTIES%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=MD+3+PROJECT+PLANNING+STUDY%2C+FROM+NORTH+OF+US+50+TO+SOUTH+OF+MD+32%2C+ANNE+ARUNDEL+AND+PRINCE+GEORGE%27S+COUNTIES%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Baltimore, Maryland; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MD 3 PROJECT PLANNING STUDY, FROM NORTH OF US 50 TO SOUTH OF MD 32, ANNE ARUNDEL AND PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTIES, MARYLAND. [Part 3 of 11] T2 - MD 3 PROJECT PLANNING STUDY, FROM NORTH OF US 50 TO SOUTH OF MD 32, ANNE ARUNDEL AND PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTIES, MARYLAND. AN - 873132114; 14879-3_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the Maryland Route 3 (MD 3) corridor from north of US 50 to south of MD 32 in Anne Arundel and Prince George's counties, Maryland is proposed. The 9.28-mile MD 3 corridor provides a major north-south transportation facility in the southwestern portion of Anne Arundel County and the northeastern portion of Prince George's County. Traffic congestion, inadequate intersections, increased residential and commercial development, and the need for safe pedestrian and bicycle use of the corridor have accelerated the need for improvements to MD 3. A reevaluation of the 2004 draft EIS conducted in 2008 determined that the draft EIS remains valid and no supplemental EIS is required. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. Each build alternative has several interchange options. Alternative 3 would implement a boulevard concept, providing dualization of northbound MD 3 in Prince George's County, with existing southbound MD 3 being converted to a local service road. Three 11-foot lanes would be provided in each direction along the existing alignment through the remainder of the corridor, with continuous 16-foot auxiliary lanes and 10-foot shoulders where appropriate. Alternative 5 would implement a dualization concept as well, utilizing three, 11-foot lanes in each direction along existing MD 3 from US 50 to MD 424, with 16-foot auxiliary lands and 10-foot shoulders where appropriate. Dualization of southbound MD 3 from MD 424 to MD 32 would be included as part of the design, with existing northbound MD 3 converted to a local service road. The selected alternative is Alternative 3 with MD 450 interchange option A/B, Crawford/Cronson Boulevards interchange option A, MD 424 continuous flow intersection, Waugh Chapel/Reidel Road interchange option B modified, and MD 175/Millersville Road interchange option B modified. Construction costs are estimated at $651 million to $669 million. Right-of-way costs are estimated at $310 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve vehicular and pedestrian safety and travel within the MD 3 corridor, enhancing traffic flows on this important link in the Baltimore/Washington/Annapolis region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way requirements for the selected alternative would result in the displacement of 10 residences, 15 businesses, 11.1 acres of wetlands, and 82.5 acres of forested land. The facility would traverse eight streams and 50.3 acres of floodplain. Construction workers would encounter at least 13 hazardous materials sites. Fifteen residences would experience traffic-generated noise levels equal to or in excess of federal standards during the design year (2025). LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0442D, Volume 28, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110123, 538 pages and maps, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Creeks KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Maryland KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132114?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MD+3+PROJECT+PLANNING+STUDY%2C+FROM+NORTH+OF+US+50+TO+SOUTH+OF+MD+32%2C+ANNE+ARUNDEL+AND+PRINCE+GEORGE%27S+COUNTIES%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=MD+3+PROJECT+PLANNING+STUDY%2C+FROM+NORTH+OF+US+50+TO+SOUTH+OF+MD+32%2C+ANNE+ARUNDEL+AND+PRINCE+GEORGE%27S+COUNTIES%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Baltimore, Maryland; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MD 3 PROJECT PLANNING STUDY, FROM NORTH OF US 50 TO SOUTH OF MD 32, ANNE ARUNDEL AND PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTIES, MARYLAND. [Part 2 of 11] T2 - MD 3 PROJECT PLANNING STUDY, FROM NORTH OF US 50 TO SOUTH OF MD 32, ANNE ARUNDEL AND PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTIES, MARYLAND. AN - 873132108; 14879-3_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the Maryland Route 3 (MD 3) corridor from north of US 50 to south of MD 32 in Anne Arundel and Prince George's counties, Maryland is proposed. The 9.28-mile MD 3 corridor provides a major north-south transportation facility in the southwestern portion of Anne Arundel County and the northeastern portion of Prince George's County. Traffic congestion, inadequate intersections, increased residential and commercial development, and the need for safe pedestrian and bicycle use of the corridor have accelerated the need for improvements to MD 3. A reevaluation of the 2004 draft EIS conducted in 2008 determined that the draft EIS remains valid and no supplemental EIS is required. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. Each build alternative has several interchange options. Alternative 3 would implement a boulevard concept, providing dualization of northbound MD 3 in Prince George's County, with existing southbound MD 3 being converted to a local service road. Three 11-foot lanes would be provided in each direction along the existing alignment through the remainder of the corridor, with continuous 16-foot auxiliary lanes and 10-foot shoulders where appropriate. Alternative 5 would implement a dualization concept as well, utilizing three, 11-foot lanes in each direction along existing MD 3 from US 50 to MD 424, with 16-foot auxiliary lands and 10-foot shoulders where appropriate. Dualization of southbound MD 3 from MD 424 to MD 32 would be included as part of the design, with existing northbound MD 3 converted to a local service road. The selected alternative is Alternative 3 with MD 450 interchange option A/B, Crawford/Cronson Boulevards interchange option A, MD 424 continuous flow intersection, Waugh Chapel/Reidel Road interchange option B modified, and MD 175/Millersville Road interchange option B modified. Construction costs are estimated at $651 million to $669 million. Right-of-way costs are estimated at $310 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve vehicular and pedestrian safety and travel within the MD 3 corridor, enhancing traffic flows on this important link in the Baltimore/Washington/Annapolis region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way requirements for the selected alternative would result in the displacement of 10 residences, 15 businesses, 11.1 acres of wetlands, and 82.5 acres of forested land. The facility would traverse eight streams and 50.3 acres of floodplain. Construction workers would encounter at least 13 hazardous materials sites. Fifteen residences would experience traffic-generated noise levels equal to or in excess of federal standards during the design year (2025). LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0442D, Volume 28, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110123, 538 pages and maps, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Creeks KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Maryland KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132108?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MD+3+PROJECT+PLANNING+STUDY%2C+FROM+NORTH+OF+US+50+TO+SOUTH+OF+MD+32%2C+ANNE+ARUNDEL+AND+PRINCE+GEORGE%27S+COUNTIES%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=MD+3+PROJECT+PLANNING+STUDY%2C+FROM+NORTH+OF+US+50+TO+SOUTH+OF+MD+32%2C+ANNE+ARUNDEL+AND+PRINCE+GEORGE%27S+COUNTIES%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Baltimore, Maryland; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BANGERTER 600 WEST PROJECT, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 9 of 15] T2 - BANGERTER 600 WEST PROJECT, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 873132022; 14878-2_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 with access only at major signalized intersections, 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 because it carries large volumes of traffic (39,000 cars per day) within the study area between I-15 and the suburban communities in the southwestern Salt Lake Valley. 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 are analyzed in this draft EIS: a No Action Alternative, the 600 West Interchange with No Access at 200 West Alternative (Alternative 4E), the 600 West Interchange with Right Turns Only at 200 West Alternative (Alternative 4F), and the 600 West Interchange with 200 West Signal and No Left Turn Alternative (Alternative 4G). 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 the 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. The Utah Department of Transportation has identified the 600 West Interchange with Right Turns Only at 200 West Alterative (Alternative 4F) as their preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Improvements to Bangerter Highway in the area of 600 West would help meet the projected travel demand in 2030 and improve safety and regional mobility. 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 business-related impacts. 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: 110122, 510 pages and maps, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-11-01-D 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/873132022?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&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 - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BANGERTER 600 WEST PROJECT, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 4 of 15] T2 - BANGERTER 600 WEST PROJECT, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 873132018; 14878-2_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 with access only at major signalized intersections, 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 because it carries large volumes of traffic (39,000 cars per day) within the study area between I-15 and the suburban communities in the southwestern Salt Lake Valley. 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 are analyzed in this draft EIS: a No Action Alternative, the 600 West Interchange with No Access at 200 West Alternative (Alternative 4E), the 600 West Interchange with Right Turns Only at 200 West Alternative (Alternative 4F), and the 600 West Interchange with 200 West Signal and No Left Turn Alternative (Alternative 4G). 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 the 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. The Utah Department of Transportation has identified the 600 West Interchange with Right Turns Only at 200 West Alterative (Alternative 4F) as their preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Improvements to Bangerter Highway in the area of 600 West would help meet the projected travel demand in 2030 and improve safety and regional mobility. 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 business-related impacts. 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: 110122, 510 pages and maps, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-11-01-D 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/873132018?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&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 - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BANGERTER 600 WEST PROJECT, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 3 of 15] T2 - BANGERTER 600 WEST PROJECT, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 873132014; 14878-2_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 with access only at major signalized intersections, 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 because it carries large volumes of traffic (39,000 cars per day) within the study area between I-15 and the suburban communities in the southwestern Salt Lake Valley. 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 are analyzed in this draft EIS: a No Action Alternative, the 600 West Interchange with No Access at 200 West Alternative (Alternative 4E), the 600 West Interchange with Right Turns Only at 200 West Alternative (Alternative 4F), and the 600 West Interchange with 200 West Signal and No Left Turn Alternative (Alternative 4G). 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 the 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. The Utah Department of Transportation has identified the 600 West Interchange with Right Turns Only at 200 West Alterative (Alternative 4F) as their preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Improvements to Bangerter Highway in the area of 600 West would help meet the projected travel demand in 2030 and improve safety and regional mobility. 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 business-related impacts. 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: 110122, 510 pages and maps, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-11-01-D 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/873132014?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&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 - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MD 3 PROJECT PLANNING STUDY, FROM NORTH OF US 50 TO SOUTH OF MD 32, ANNE ARUNDEL AND PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTIES, MARYLAND. [Part 11 of 11] T2 - MD 3 PROJECT PLANNING STUDY, FROM NORTH OF US 50 TO SOUTH OF MD 32, ANNE ARUNDEL AND PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTIES, MARYLAND. AN - 873131795; 14879-3_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the Maryland Route 3 (MD 3) corridor from north of US 50 to south of MD 32 in Anne Arundel and Prince George's counties, Maryland is proposed. The 9.28-mile MD 3 corridor provides a major north-south transportation facility in the southwestern portion of Anne Arundel County and the northeastern portion of Prince George's County. Traffic congestion, inadequate intersections, increased residential and commercial development, and the need for safe pedestrian and bicycle use of the corridor have accelerated the need for improvements to MD 3. A reevaluation of the 2004 draft EIS conducted in 2008 determined that the draft EIS remains valid and no supplemental EIS is required. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. Each build alternative has several interchange options. Alternative 3 would implement a boulevard concept, providing dualization of northbound MD 3 in Prince George's County, with existing southbound MD 3 being converted to a local service road. Three 11-foot lanes would be provided in each direction along the existing alignment through the remainder of the corridor, with continuous 16-foot auxiliary lanes and 10-foot shoulders where appropriate. Alternative 5 would implement a dualization concept as well, utilizing three, 11-foot lanes in each direction along existing MD 3 from US 50 to MD 424, with 16-foot auxiliary lands and 10-foot shoulders where appropriate. Dualization of southbound MD 3 from MD 424 to MD 32 would be included as part of the design, with existing northbound MD 3 converted to a local service road. The selected alternative is Alternative 3 with MD 450 interchange option A/B, Crawford/Cronson Boulevards interchange option A, MD 424 continuous flow intersection, Waugh Chapel/Reidel Road interchange option B modified, and MD 175/Millersville Road interchange option B modified. Construction costs are estimated at $651 million to $669 million. Right-of-way costs are estimated at $310 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve vehicular and pedestrian safety and travel within the MD 3 corridor, enhancing traffic flows on this important link in the Baltimore/Washington/Annapolis region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way requirements for the selected alternative would result in the displacement of 10 residences, 15 businesses, 11.1 acres of wetlands, and 82.5 acres of forested land. The facility would traverse eight streams and 50.3 acres of floodplain. Construction workers would encounter at least 13 hazardous materials sites. Fifteen residences would experience traffic-generated noise levels equal to or in excess of federal standards during the design year (2025). LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0442D, Volume 28, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110123, 538 pages and maps, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Creeks KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Maryland KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131795?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MD+3+PROJECT+PLANNING+STUDY%2C+FROM+NORTH+OF+US+50+TO+SOUTH+OF+MD+32%2C+ANNE+ARUNDEL+AND+PRINCE+GEORGE%27S+COUNTIES%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=MD+3+PROJECT+PLANNING+STUDY%2C+FROM+NORTH+OF+US+50+TO+SOUTH+OF+MD+32%2C+ANNE+ARUNDEL+AND+PRINCE+GEORGE%27S+COUNTIES%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Baltimore, Maryland; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MD 3 PROJECT PLANNING STUDY, FROM NORTH OF US 50 TO SOUTH OF MD 32, ANNE ARUNDEL AND PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTIES, MARYLAND. [Part 10 of 11] T2 - MD 3 PROJECT PLANNING STUDY, FROM NORTH OF US 50 TO SOUTH OF MD 32, ANNE ARUNDEL AND PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTIES, MARYLAND. AN - 873131791; 14879-3_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the Maryland Route 3 (MD 3) corridor from north of US 50 to south of MD 32 in Anne Arundel and Prince George's counties, Maryland is proposed. The 9.28-mile MD 3 corridor provides a major north-south transportation facility in the southwestern portion of Anne Arundel County and the northeastern portion of Prince George's County. Traffic congestion, inadequate intersections, increased residential and commercial development, and the need for safe pedestrian and bicycle use of the corridor have accelerated the need for improvements to MD 3. A reevaluation of the 2004 draft EIS conducted in 2008 determined that the draft EIS remains valid and no supplemental EIS is required. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. Each build alternative has several interchange options. Alternative 3 would implement a boulevard concept, providing dualization of northbound MD 3 in Prince George's County, with existing southbound MD 3 being converted to a local service road. Three 11-foot lanes would be provided in each direction along the existing alignment through the remainder of the corridor, with continuous 16-foot auxiliary lanes and 10-foot shoulders where appropriate. Alternative 5 would implement a dualization concept as well, utilizing three, 11-foot lanes in each direction along existing MD 3 from US 50 to MD 424, with 16-foot auxiliary lands and 10-foot shoulders where appropriate. Dualization of southbound MD 3 from MD 424 to MD 32 would be included as part of the design, with existing northbound MD 3 converted to a local service road. The selected alternative is Alternative 3 with MD 450 interchange option A/B, Crawford/Cronson Boulevards interchange option A, MD 424 continuous flow intersection, Waugh Chapel/Reidel Road interchange option B modified, and MD 175/Millersville Road interchange option B modified. Construction costs are estimated at $651 million to $669 million. Right-of-way costs are estimated at $310 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve vehicular and pedestrian safety and travel within the MD 3 corridor, enhancing traffic flows on this important link in the Baltimore/Washington/Annapolis region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way requirements for the selected alternative would result in the displacement of 10 residences, 15 businesses, 11.1 acres of wetlands, and 82.5 acres of forested land. The facility would traverse eight streams and 50.3 acres of floodplain. Construction workers would encounter at least 13 hazardous materials sites. Fifteen residences would experience traffic-generated noise levels equal to or in excess of federal standards during the design year (2025). LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0442D, Volume 28, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110123, 538 pages and maps, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Creeks KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Maryland KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131791?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MD+3+PROJECT+PLANNING+STUDY%2C+FROM+NORTH+OF+US+50+TO+SOUTH+OF+MD+32%2C+ANNE+ARUNDEL+AND+PRINCE+GEORGE%27S+COUNTIES%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=MD+3+PROJECT+PLANNING+STUDY%2C+FROM+NORTH+OF+US+50+TO+SOUTH+OF+MD+32%2C+ANNE+ARUNDEL+AND+PRINCE+GEORGE%27S+COUNTIES%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Baltimore, Maryland; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MD 3 PROJECT PLANNING STUDY, FROM NORTH OF US 50 TO SOUTH OF MD 32, ANNE ARUNDEL AND PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTIES, MARYLAND. [Part 7 of 11] T2 - MD 3 PROJECT PLANNING STUDY, FROM NORTH OF US 50 TO SOUTH OF MD 32, ANNE ARUNDEL AND PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTIES, MARYLAND. AN - 873131787; 14879-3_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the Maryland Route 3 (MD 3) corridor from north of US 50 to south of MD 32 in Anne Arundel and Prince George's counties, Maryland is proposed. The 9.28-mile MD 3 corridor provides a major north-south transportation facility in the southwestern portion of Anne Arundel County and the northeastern portion of Prince George's County. Traffic congestion, inadequate intersections, increased residential and commercial development, and the need for safe pedestrian and bicycle use of the corridor have accelerated the need for improvements to MD 3. A reevaluation of the 2004 draft EIS conducted in 2008 determined that the draft EIS remains valid and no supplemental EIS is required. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. Each build alternative has several interchange options. Alternative 3 would implement a boulevard concept, providing dualization of northbound MD 3 in Prince George's County, with existing southbound MD 3 being converted to a local service road. Three 11-foot lanes would be provided in each direction along the existing alignment through the remainder of the corridor, with continuous 16-foot auxiliary lanes and 10-foot shoulders where appropriate. Alternative 5 would implement a dualization concept as well, utilizing three, 11-foot lanes in each direction along existing MD 3 from US 50 to MD 424, with 16-foot auxiliary lands and 10-foot shoulders where appropriate. Dualization of southbound MD 3 from MD 424 to MD 32 would be included as part of the design, with existing northbound MD 3 converted to a local service road. The selected alternative is Alternative 3 with MD 450 interchange option A/B, Crawford/Cronson Boulevards interchange option A, MD 424 continuous flow intersection, Waugh Chapel/Reidel Road interchange option B modified, and MD 175/Millersville Road interchange option B modified. Construction costs are estimated at $651 million to $669 million. Right-of-way costs are estimated at $310 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve vehicular and pedestrian safety and travel within the MD 3 corridor, enhancing traffic flows on this important link in the Baltimore/Washington/Annapolis region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way requirements for the selected alternative would result in the displacement of 10 residences, 15 businesses, 11.1 acres of wetlands, and 82.5 acres of forested land. The facility would traverse eight streams and 50.3 acres of floodplain. Construction workers would encounter at least 13 hazardous materials sites. Fifteen residences would experience traffic-generated noise levels equal to or in excess of federal standards during the design year (2025). LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0442D, Volume 28, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110123, 538 pages and maps, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Creeks KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Maryland KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131787?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MD+3+PROJECT+PLANNING+STUDY%2C+FROM+NORTH+OF+US+50+TO+SOUTH+OF+MD+32%2C+ANNE+ARUNDEL+AND+PRINCE+GEORGE%27S+COUNTIES%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=MD+3+PROJECT+PLANNING+STUDY%2C+FROM+NORTH+OF+US+50+TO+SOUTH+OF+MD+32%2C+ANNE+ARUNDEL+AND+PRINCE+GEORGE%27S+COUNTIES%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Baltimore, Maryland; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BANGERTER 600 WEST PROJECT, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 1 of 15] T2 - BANGERTER 600 WEST PROJECT, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 873131415; 14878-2_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 with access only at major signalized intersections, 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 because it carries large volumes of traffic (39,000 cars per day) within the study area between I-15 and the suburban communities in the southwestern Salt Lake Valley. 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 are analyzed in this draft EIS: a No Action Alternative, the 600 West Interchange with No Access at 200 West Alternative (Alternative 4E), the 600 West Interchange with Right Turns Only at 200 West Alternative (Alternative 4F), and the 600 West Interchange with 200 West Signal and No Left Turn Alternative (Alternative 4G). 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 the 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. The Utah Department of Transportation has identified the 600 West Interchange with Right Turns Only at 200 West Alterative (Alternative 4F) as their preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Improvements to Bangerter Highway in the area of 600 West would help meet the projected travel demand in 2030 and improve safety and regional mobility. 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 business-related impacts. 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: 110122, 510 pages and maps, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-11-01-D 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/873131415?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&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 - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - VIRGIL C. SUMMER NUCLEAR STATION UNITS 2 AND 3, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSES, FAIRFIELD COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - VIRGIL C. SUMMER NUCLEAR STATION UNITS 2 AND 3, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSES, FAIRFIELD COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 873131396; 14883-7_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of combined operating licenses (COLs) for the construction and operation of two new nuclear power reactor units at the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) in Fairfield County, South Carolina is proposed. South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G), acting for itself and for Santee Cooper (the State-owned electric and water utility, formally called the South Carolina Public Service Authority), submitted an application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on March 27, 2008 for the proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 which would be located one mile south of the existing Unit 1. The VCSNS site currently contains one pressurized light water reactor and associated facilities located on the southern shore of the Monticello Reservoir in a sparsely populated, largely rural area 26 miles southeast of Columbia. The existing nuclear unit and auxiliary facilities occupy 492 acres with another 784 acres extending into the reservoir. The towns of Jenkinsville, Peak, and Pomona are within a six-mile radius. The applicant's proposal is to build and operate two Westinghouse AP1000 reactor steam electric generating systems. Each reactor would connect to two steam generators that transfer heat from the reactor core, converting feed water to steam that drives high-pressure and low-pressure turbines, thereby creating electricity. The AP1000 design has a thermal power of 3400 megawatts (MW) with a design gross-electrical output of 1200 MW. New facilities would include the Unit 2 and Unit 3 power blocks, cooling towers, switchyard, discharge structures and blowdown lines, and the proposed independent spent-fuel storage installation. The addition of the units would require six new 230-kilovolt (kV) transmission lines and some existing lines would require upgrading. During the operation of proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3, makeup water for the circulating-water system would be obtained from the Monticello Reservoir and from withdrawals and exchanges with the Broad River/Parr Reservoir. The intake structure for Units 2 and 3 would be located on the southern shore of Monticello Reservoir. Construction and preconstruction activities would span a total of 123 months, with 30 months dedicated to site clearing and preparation, and 93 months for building Units 2 and 3. Construction would be staggered by two years, for a total construction and preconstruction period of 10.25 years. SCE&G estimates that the onsite workforce would reach a peak of up to 3,600 workers during 2013 and 2015. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this final EIS considers other energy sources and building and operation of new reactors at four alternative sites in South Carolina. The NRC staffs recommendation is that the COLs be issued as requested. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide additional baseload electrical generation capacity by 2016 and 2019 within the service areas of SCE&G and Santee Cooper. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 0.66 acres of wetlands and 774 linear feet of streams would be filled; vegetation would be cleared and up to 592 acres of wetlands traversed by new transmission lines; terrestrial habitat onsite and in proposed new transmission-line corridors would be permanently lost; increased habitat fragmentation from transmission lines would have potential impacts on important species. The installation of two water-intake structures on the Monticello Reservoir could affect aquatic biota. Dredging activities may temporarily increase turbidity, siltation, and noise. Temporary impacts on local ambient air quality could occur. Temporary highly localized traffic impacts would occur in an environmental justice community. Cultural resources would be permanently altered by the proposed action and from the installation of transmission lines. Transmission lines would alter the visual landscape. 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). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0043D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110127, Volume 1--919 pages, Volume 2--493 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: NUREG-1939 KW - Boiling Water Reactors KW - Cooling Systems KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Nuclear Reactors KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Regulations KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Wildlife Habitat 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/873131396?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=VIRGIL+C.+SUMMER+NUCLEAR+STATION+UNITS+2+AND+3%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSES%2C+FAIRFIELD+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=VIRGIL+C.+SUMMER+NUCLEAR+STATION+UNITS+2+AND+3%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSES%2C+FAIRFIELD+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 - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - VIRGIL C. SUMMER NUCLEAR STATION UNITS 2 AND 3, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSES, FAIRFIELD COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - VIRGIL C. SUMMER NUCLEAR STATION UNITS 2 AND 3, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSES, FAIRFIELD COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 873131350; 14883-7_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of combined operating licenses (COLs) for the construction and operation of two new nuclear power reactor units at the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) in Fairfield County, South Carolina is proposed. South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G), acting for itself and for Santee Cooper (the State-owned electric and water utility, formally called the South Carolina Public Service Authority), submitted an application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on March 27, 2008 for the proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 which would be located one mile south of the existing Unit 1. The VCSNS site currently contains one pressurized light water reactor and associated facilities located on the southern shore of the Monticello Reservoir in a sparsely populated, largely rural area 26 miles southeast of Columbia. The existing nuclear unit and auxiliary facilities occupy 492 acres with another 784 acres extending into the reservoir. The towns of Jenkinsville, Peak, and Pomona are within a six-mile radius. The applicant's proposal is to build and operate two Westinghouse AP1000 reactor steam electric generating systems. Each reactor would connect to two steam generators that transfer heat from the reactor core, converting feed water to steam that drives high-pressure and low-pressure turbines, thereby creating electricity. The AP1000 design has a thermal power of 3400 megawatts (MW) with a design gross-electrical output of 1200 MW. New facilities would include the Unit 2 and Unit 3 power blocks, cooling towers, switchyard, discharge structures and blowdown lines, and the proposed independent spent-fuel storage installation. The addition of the units would require six new 230-kilovolt (kV) transmission lines and some existing lines would require upgrading. During the operation of proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3, makeup water for the circulating-water system would be obtained from the Monticello Reservoir and from withdrawals and exchanges with the Broad River/Parr Reservoir. The intake structure for Units 2 and 3 would be located on the southern shore of Monticello Reservoir. Construction and preconstruction activities would span a total of 123 months, with 30 months dedicated to site clearing and preparation, and 93 months for building Units 2 and 3. Construction would be staggered by two years, for a total construction and preconstruction period of 10.25 years. SCE&G estimates that the onsite workforce would reach a peak of up to 3,600 workers during 2013 and 2015. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this final EIS considers other energy sources and building and operation of new reactors at four alternative sites in South Carolina. The NRC staffs recommendation is that the COLs be issued as requested. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide additional baseload electrical generation capacity by 2016 and 2019 within the service areas of SCE&G and Santee Cooper. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 0.66 acres of wetlands and 774 linear feet of streams would be filled; vegetation would be cleared and up to 592 acres of wetlands traversed by new transmission lines; terrestrial habitat onsite and in proposed new transmission-line corridors would be permanently lost; increased habitat fragmentation from transmission lines would have potential impacts on important species. The installation of two water-intake structures on the Monticello Reservoir could affect aquatic biota. Dredging activities may temporarily increase turbidity, siltation, and noise. Temporary impacts on local ambient air quality could occur. Temporary highly localized traffic impacts would occur in an environmental justice community. Cultural resources would be permanently altered by the proposed action and from the installation of transmission lines. Transmission lines would alter the visual landscape. 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). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0043D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110127, Volume 1--919 pages, Volume 2--493 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: NUREG-1939 KW - Boiling Water Reactors KW - Cooling Systems KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Nuclear Reactors KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Regulations KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Wildlife Habitat 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/873131350?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=VIRGIL+C.+SUMMER+NUCLEAR+STATION+UNITS+2+AND+3%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSES%2C+FAIRFIELD+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=VIRGIL+C.+SUMMER+NUCLEAR+STATION+UNITS+2+AND+3%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSES%2C+FAIRFIELD+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 - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 22, 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 (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). [Part 33 of 50] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). AN - 873131287; 14881-5_0033 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a pipeline and related facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta to a new tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma and to existing terminals in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,380 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Initially, transport capacity would be 700,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil, and ultimately the pipeline would be capable of delivering up to 900,000 bpd from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. 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. It would interconnect with the northern and southern termini of the previously approved 298-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter Keystone Cushing Extension. The project would be placed into service in phases, the Gulf Coast segment in 2011, and the Steele City segment and the Houston Lateral in 2012. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations, each located on a five- to 10-acre site; 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 supplemental draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, alternative routes for the proposed 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability, and new information made available since publication of the draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (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 20,585 acres, including 11,533 acres of native and low quality grassland/rangeland/pastureland, 2,523 acres of forest land, and 5,404 acres of agriculture/cropland. Surface disturbance would affect soils that are both highly erodible and prone to compaction. Approximately 1,351 acres of upland and wetland wildlife habitats would be cleared and then recovered. Seven federally-listed plant species and 14 federally-listed animal species 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. 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: 110125, 353 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 33 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands 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 - Visual Resources 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/873131287?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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 - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 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 (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). [Part 32 of 50] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). AN - 873131274; 14881-5_0032 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a pipeline and related facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta to a new tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma and to existing terminals in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,380 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Initially, transport capacity would be 700,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil, and ultimately the pipeline would be capable of delivering up to 900,000 bpd from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. 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. It would interconnect with the northern and southern termini of the previously approved 298-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter Keystone Cushing Extension. The project would be placed into service in phases, the Gulf Coast segment in 2011, and the Steele City segment and the Houston Lateral in 2012. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations, each located on a five- to 10-acre site; 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 supplemental draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, alternative routes for the proposed 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability, and new information made available since publication of the draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (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 20,585 acres, including 11,533 acres of native and low quality grassland/rangeland/pastureland, 2,523 acres of forest land, and 5,404 acres of agriculture/cropland. Surface disturbance would affect soils that are both highly erodible and prone to compaction. Approximately 1,351 acres of upland and wetland wildlife habitats would be cleared and then recovered. Seven federally-listed plant species and 14 federally-listed animal species 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. 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: 110125, 353 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 32 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands 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 - Visual Resources 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/873131274?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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 - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 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 (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). [Part 15 of 50] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). AN - 873131227; 14881-5_0015 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a pipeline and related facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta to a new tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma and to existing terminals in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,380 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Initially, transport capacity would be 700,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil, and ultimately the pipeline would be capable of delivering up to 900,000 bpd from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. 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. It would interconnect with the northern and southern termini of the previously approved 298-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter Keystone Cushing Extension. The project would be placed into service in phases, the Gulf Coast segment in 2011, and the Steele City segment and the Houston Lateral in 2012. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations, each located on a five- to 10-acre site; 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 supplemental draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, alternative routes for the proposed 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability, and new information made available since publication of the draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (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 20,585 acres, including 11,533 acres of native and low quality grassland/rangeland/pastureland, 2,523 acres of forest land, and 5,404 acres of agriculture/cropland. Surface disturbance would affect soils that are both highly erodible and prone to compaction. Approximately 1,351 acres of upland and wetland wildlife habitats would be cleared and then recovered. Seven federally-listed plant species and 14 federally-listed animal species 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. 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: 110125, 353 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands 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 - Visual Resources 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/873131227?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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 - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 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 (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). [Part 14 of 50] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). AN - 873131218; 14881-5_0014 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a pipeline and related facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta to a new tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma and to existing terminals in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,380 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Initially, transport capacity would be 700,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil, and ultimately the pipeline would be capable of delivering up to 900,000 bpd from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. 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. It would interconnect with the northern and southern termini of the previously approved 298-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter Keystone Cushing Extension. The project would be placed into service in phases, the Gulf Coast segment in 2011, and the Steele City segment and the Houston Lateral in 2012. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations, each located on a five- to 10-acre site; 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 supplemental draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, alternative routes for the proposed 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability, and new information made available since publication of the draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (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 20,585 acres, including 11,533 acres of native and low quality grassland/rangeland/pastureland, 2,523 acres of forest land, and 5,404 acres of agriculture/cropland. Surface disturbance would affect soils that are both highly erodible and prone to compaction. Approximately 1,351 acres of upland and wetland wildlife habitats would be cleared and then recovered. Seven federally-listed plant species and 14 federally-listed animal species 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. 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: 110125, 353 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands 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 - Visual Resources 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/873131218?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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 - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 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 (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). [Part 47 of 50] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). AN - 873130751; 14881-5_0047 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a pipeline and related facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta to a new tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma and to existing terminals in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,380 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Initially, transport capacity would be 700,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil, and ultimately the pipeline would be capable of delivering up to 900,000 bpd from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. 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. It would interconnect with the northern and southern termini of the previously approved 298-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter Keystone Cushing Extension. The project would be placed into service in phases, the Gulf Coast segment in 2011, and the Steele City segment and the Houston Lateral in 2012. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations, each located on a five- to 10-acre site; 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 supplemental draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, alternative routes for the proposed 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability, and new information made available since publication of the draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (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 20,585 acres, including 11,533 acres of native and low quality grassland/rangeland/pastureland, 2,523 acres of forest land, and 5,404 acres of agriculture/cropland. Surface disturbance would affect soils that are both highly erodible and prone to compaction. Approximately 1,351 acres of upland and wetland wildlife habitats would be cleared and then recovered. Seven federally-listed plant species and 14 federally-listed animal species 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. 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: 110125, 353 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 47 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands 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 - Visual Resources 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/873130751?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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 - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 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 (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). [Part 45 of 50] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). AN - 873130739; 14881-5_0045 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a pipeline and related facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta to a new tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma and to existing terminals in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,380 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Initially, transport capacity would be 700,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil, and ultimately the pipeline would be capable of delivering up to 900,000 bpd from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. 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. It would interconnect with the northern and southern termini of the previously approved 298-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter Keystone Cushing Extension. The project would be placed into service in phases, the Gulf Coast segment in 2011, and the Steele City segment and the Houston Lateral in 2012. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations, each located on a five- to 10-acre site; 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 supplemental draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, alternative routes for the proposed 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability, and new information made available since publication of the draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (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 20,585 acres, including 11,533 acres of native and low quality grassland/rangeland/pastureland, 2,523 acres of forest land, and 5,404 acres of agriculture/cropland. Surface disturbance would affect soils that are both highly erodible and prone to compaction. Approximately 1,351 acres of upland and wetland wildlife habitats would be cleared and then recovered. Seven federally-listed plant species and 14 federally-listed animal species 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. 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: 110125, 353 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 45 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands 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 - Visual Resources 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/873130739?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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 - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 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 (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). [Part 44 of 50] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). AN - 873130727; 14881-5_0044 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a pipeline and related facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta to a new tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma and to existing terminals in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,380 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Initially, transport capacity would be 700,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil, and ultimately the pipeline would be capable of delivering up to 900,000 bpd from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. 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. It would interconnect with the northern and southern termini of the previously approved 298-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter Keystone Cushing Extension. The project would be placed into service in phases, the Gulf Coast segment in 2011, and the Steele City segment and the Houston Lateral in 2012. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations, each located on a five- to 10-acre site; 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 supplemental draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, alternative routes for the proposed 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability, and new information made available since publication of the draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (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 20,585 acres, including 11,533 acres of native and low quality grassland/rangeland/pastureland, 2,523 acres of forest land, and 5,404 acres of agriculture/cropland. Surface disturbance would affect soils that are both highly erodible and prone to compaction. Approximately 1,351 acres of upland and wetland wildlife habitats would be cleared and then recovered. Seven federally-listed plant species and 14 federally-listed animal species 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. 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: 110125, 353 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 44 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands 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 - Visual Resources 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/873130727?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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 - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 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 (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). [Part 37 of 50] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). AN - 873130717; 14881-5_0037 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a pipeline and related facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta to a new tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma and to existing terminals in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,380 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Initially, transport capacity would be 700,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil, and ultimately the pipeline would be capable of delivering up to 900,000 bpd from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. 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. It would interconnect with the northern and southern termini of the previously approved 298-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter Keystone Cushing Extension. The project would be placed into service in phases, the Gulf Coast segment in 2011, and the Steele City segment and the Houston Lateral in 2012. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations, each located on a five- to 10-acre site; 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 supplemental draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, alternative routes for the proposed 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability, and new information made available since publication of the draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (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 20,585 acres, including 11,533 acres of native and low quality grassland/rangeland/pastureland, 2,523 acres of forest land, and 5,404 acres of agriculture/cropland. Surface disturbance would affect soils that are both highly erodible and prone to compaction. Approximately 1,351 acres of upland and wetland wildlife habitats would be cleared and then recovered. Seven federally-listed plant species and 14 federally-listed animal species 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. 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: 110125, 353 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 37 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands 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 - Visual Resources 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/873130717?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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 - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 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 (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). [Part 23 of 50] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). AN - 873130559; 14881-5_0023 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a pipeline and related facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta to a new tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma and to existing terminals in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,380 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Initially, transport capacity would be 700,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil, and ultimately the pipeline would be capable of delivering up to 900,000 bpd from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. 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. It would interconnect with the northern and southern termini of the previously approved 298-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter Keystone Cushing Extension. The project would be placed into service in phases, the Gulf Coast segment in 2011, and the Steele City segment and the Houston Lateral in 2012. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations, each located on a five- to 10-acre site; 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 supplemental draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, alternative routes for the proposed 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability, and new information made available since publication of the draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (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 20,585 acres, including 11,533 acres of native and low quality grassland/rangeland/pastureland, 2,523 acres of forest land, and 5,404 acres of agriculture/cropland. Surface disturbance would affect soils that are both highly erodible and prone to compaction. Approximately 1,351 acres of upland and wetland wildlife habitats would be cleared and then recovered. Seven federally-listed plant species and 14 federally-listed animal species 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. 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: 110125, 353 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 23 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands 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 - Visual Resources 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/873130559?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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 - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 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 (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). [Part 22 of 50] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). AN - 873130552; 14881-5_0022 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a pipeline and related facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta to a new tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma and to existing terminals in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,380 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Initially, transport capacity would be 700,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil, and ultimately the pipeline would be capable of delivering up to 900,000 bpd from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. 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. It would interconnect with the northern and southern termini of the previously approved 298-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter Keystone Cushing Extension. The project would be placed into service in phases, the Gulf Coast segment in 2011, and the Steele City segment and the Houston Lateral in 2012. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations, each located on a five- to 10-acre site; 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 supplemental draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, alternative routes for the proposed 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability, and new information made available since publication of the draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (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 20,585 acres, including 11,533 acres of native and low quality grassland/rangeland/pastureland, 2,523 acres of forest land, and 5,404 acres of agriculture/cropland. Surface disturbance would affect soils that are both highly erodible and prone to compaction. Approximately 1,351 acres of upland and wetland wildlife habitats would be cleared and then recovered. Seven federally-listed plant species and 14 federally-listed animal species 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. 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: 110125, 353 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 22 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands 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 - Visual Resources 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/873130552?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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 - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 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 (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). [Part 21 of 50] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). AN - 873130545; 14881-5_0021 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a pipeline and related facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta to a new tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma and to existing terminals in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,380 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Initially, transport capacity would be 700,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil, and ultimately the pipeline would be capable of delivering up to 900,000 bpd from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. 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. It would interconnect with the northern and southern termini of the previously approved 298-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter Keystone Cushing Extension. The project would be placed into service in phases, the Gulf Coast segment in 2011, and the Steele City segment and the Houston Lateral in 2012. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations, each located on a five- to 10-acre site; 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 supplemental draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, alternative routes for the proposed 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability, and new information made available since publication of the draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (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 20,585 acres, including 11,533 acres of native and low quality grassland/rangeland/pastureland, 2,523 acres of forest land, and 5,404 acres of agriculture/cropland. Surface disturbance would affect soils that are both highly erodible and prone to compaction. Approximately 1,351 acres of upland and wetland wildlife habitats would be cleared and then recovered. Seven federally-listed plant species and 14 federally-listed animal species 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. 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: 110125, 353 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 21 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands 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 - Visual Resources 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/873130545?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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 - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 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 (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). [Part 20 of 50] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). AN - 873130538; 14881-5_0020 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a pipeline and related facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta to a new tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma and to existing terminals in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,380 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Initially, transport capacity would be 700,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil, and ultimately the pipeline would be capable of delivering up to 900,000 bpd from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. 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. It would interconnect with the northern and southern termini of the previously approved 298-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter Keystone Cushing Extension. The project would be placed into service in phases, the Gulf Coast segment in 2011, and the Steele City segment and the Houston Lateral in 2012. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations, each located on a five- to 10-acre site; 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 supplemental draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, alternative routes for the proposed 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability, and new information made available since publication of the draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (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 20,585 acres, including 11,533 acres of native and low quality grassland/rangeland/pastureland, 2,523 acres of forest land, and 5,404 acres of agriculture/cropland. Surface disturbance would affect soils that are both highly erodible and prone to compaction. Approximately 1,351 acres of upland and wetland wildlife habitats would be cleared and then recovered. Seven federally-listed plant species and 14 federally-listed animal species 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. 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: 110125, 353 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 20 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands 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 - Visual Resources 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/873130538?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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 - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 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 (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). [Part 43 of 50] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). AN - 873130495; 14881-5_0043 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a pipeline and related facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta to a new tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma and to existing terminals in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,380 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Initially, transport capacity would be 700,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil, and ultimately the pipeline would be capable of delivering up to 900,000 bpd from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. 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. It would interconnect with the northern and southern termini of the previously approved 298-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter Keystone Cushing Extension. The project would be placed into service in phases, the Gulf Coast segment in 2011, and the Steele City segment and the Houston Lateral in 2012. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations, each located on a five- to 10-acre site; 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 supplemental draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, alternative routes for the proposed 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability, and new information made available since publication of the draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (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 20,585 acres, including 11,533 acres of native and low quality grassland/rangeland/pastureland, 2,523 acres of forest land, and 5,404 acres of agriculture/cropland. Surface disturbance would affect soils that are both highly erodible and prone to compaction. Approximately 1,351 acres of upland and wetland wildlife habitats would be cleared and then recovered. Seven federally-listed plant species and 14 federally-listed animal species 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. 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: 110125, 353 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 43 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands 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 - Visual Resources 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/873130495?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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 - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 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 (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). [Part 30 of 50] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). AN - 873130467; 14881-5_0030 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a pipeline and related facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta to a new tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma and to existing terminals in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,380 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Initially, transport capacity would be 700,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil, and ultimately the pipeline would be capable of delivering up to 900,000 bpd from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. 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. It would interconnect with the northern and southern termini of the previously approved 298-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter Keystone Cushing Extension. The project would be placed into service in phases, the Gulf Coast segment in 2011, and the Steele City segment and the Houston Lateral in 2012. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations, each located on a five- to 10-acre site; 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 supplemental draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, alternative routes for the proposed 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability, and new information made available since publication of the draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (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 20,585 acres, including 11,533 acres of native and low quality grassland/rangeland/pastureland, 2,523 acres of forest land, and 5,404 acres of agriculture/cropland. Surface disturbance would affect soils that are both highly erodible and prone to compaction. Approximately 1,351 acres of upland and wetland wildlife habitats would be cleared and then recovered. Seven federally-listed plant species and 14 federally-listed animal species 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. 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: 110125, 353 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 30 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands 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 - Visual Resources 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/873130467?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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 - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 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 (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). [Part 39 of 50] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). AN - 873130397; 14881-5_0039 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a pipeline and related facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta to a new tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma and to existing terminals in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,380 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Initially, transport capacity would be 700,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil, and ultimately the pipeline would be capable of delivering up to 900,000 bpd from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. 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. It would interconnect with the northern and southern termini of the previously approved 298-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter Keystone Cushing Extension. The project would be placed into service in phases, the Gulf Coast segment in 2011, and the Steele City segment and the Houston Lateral in 2012. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations, each located on a five- to 10-acre site; 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 supplemental draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, alternative routes for the proposed 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability, and new information made available since publication of the draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (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 20,585 acres, including 11,533 acres of native and low quality grassland/rangeland/pastureland, 2,523 acres of forest land, and 5,404 acres of agriculture/cropland. Surface disturbance would affect soils that are both highly erodible and prone to compaction. Approximately 1,351 acres of upland and wetland wildlife habitats would be cleared and then recovered. Seven federally-listed plant species and 14 federally-listed animal species 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. 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: 110125, 353 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 39 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands 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 - Visual Resources 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/873130397?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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 - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 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 (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). [Part 50 of 50] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). AN - 873130394; 14881-5_0050 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a pipeline and related facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta to a new tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma and to existing terminals in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,380 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Initially, transport capacity would be 700,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil, and ultimately the pipeline would be capable of delivering up to 900,000 bpd from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. 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. It would interconnect with the northern and southern termini of the previously approved 298-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter Keystone Cushing Extension. The project would be placed into service in phases, the Gulf Coast segment in 2011, and the Steele City segment and the Houston Lateral in 2012. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations, each located on a five- to 10-acre site; 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 supplemental draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, alternative routes for the proposed 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability, and new information made available since publication of the draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (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 20,585 acres, including 11,533 acres of native and low quality grassland/rangeland/pastureland, 2,523 acres of forest land, and 5,404 acres of agriculture/cropland. Surface disturbance would affect soils that are both highly erodible and prone to compaction. Approximately 1,351 acres of upland and wetland wildlife habitats would be cleared and then recovered. Seven federally-listed plant species and 14 federally-listed animal species 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. 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: 110125, 353 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 50 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands 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 - Visual Resources 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/873130394?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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 - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 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 (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). [Part 38 of 50] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). AN - 873130378; 14881-5_0038 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a pipeline and related facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta to a new tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma and to existing terminals in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,380 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Initially, transport capacity would be 700,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil, and ultimately the pipeline would be capable of delivering up to 900,000 bpd from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. 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. It would interconnect with the northern and southern termini of the previously approved 298-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter Keystone Cushing Extension. The project would be placed into service in phases, the Gulf Coast segment in 2011, and the Steele City segment and the Houston Lateral in 2012. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations, each located on a five- to 10-acre site; 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 supplemental draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, alternative routes for the proposed 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability, and new information made available since publication of the draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (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 20,585 acres, including 11,533 acres of native and low quality grassland/rangeland/pastureland, 2,523 acres of forest land, and 5,404 acres of agriculture/cropland. Surface disturbance would affect soils that are both highly erodible and prone to compaction. Approximately 1,351 acres of upland and wetland wildlife habitats would be cleared and then recovered. Seven federally-listed plant species and 14 federally-listed animal species 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. 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: 110125, 353 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 38 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands 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 - Visual Resources 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/873130378?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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 - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 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 (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). [Part 36 of 50] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). AN - 873130340; 14881-5_0036 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a pipeline and related facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta to a new tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma and to existing terminals in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,380 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Initially, transport capacity would be 700,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil, and ultimately the pipeline would be capable of delivering up to 900,000 bpd from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. 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. It would interconnect with the northern and southern termini of the previously approved 298-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter Keystone Cushing Extension. The project would be placed into service in phases, the Gulf Coast segment in 2011, and the Steele City segment and the Houston Lateral in 2012. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations, each located on a five- to 10-acre site; 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 supplemental draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, alternative routes for the proposed 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability, and new information made available since publication of the draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (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 20,585 acres, including 11,533 acres of native and low quality grassland/rangeland/pastureland, 2,523 acres of forest land, and 5,404 acres of agriculture/cropland. Surface disturbance would affect soils that are both highly erodible and prone to compaction. Approximately 1,351 acres of upland and wetland wildlife habitats would be cleared and then recovered. Seven federally-listed plant species and 14 federally-listed animal species 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. 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: 110125, 353 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 36 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands 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 - Visual Resources 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/873130340?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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 - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 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 (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). [Part 35 of 50] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). AN - 873130322; 14881-5_0035 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a pipeline and related facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta to a new tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma and to existing terminals in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,380 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Initially, transport capacity would be 700,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil, and ultimately the pipeline would be capable of delivering up to 900,000 bpd from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. 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. It would interconnect with the northern and southern termini of the previously approved 298-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter Keystone Cushing Extension. The project would be placed into service in phases, the Gulf Coast segment in 2011, and the Steele City segment and the Houston Lateral in 2012. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations, each located on a five- to 10-acre site; 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 supplemental draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, alternative routes for the proposed 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability, and new information made available since publication of the draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (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 20,585 acres, including 11,533 acres of native and low quality grassland/rangeland/pastureland, 2,523 acres of forest land, and 5,404 acres of agriculture/cropland. Surface disturbance would affect soils that are both highly erodible and prone to compaction. Approximately 1,351 acres of upland and wetland wildlife habitats would be cleared and then recovered. Seven federally-listed plant species and 14 federally-listed animal species 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. 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: 110125, 353 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 35 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands 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 - Visual Resources 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/873130322?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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 - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 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 (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). [Part 34 of 50] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). AN - 873130313; 14881-5_0034 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a pipeline and related facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta to a new tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma and to existing terminals in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,380 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Initially, transport capacity would be 700,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil, and ultimately the pipeline would be capable of delivering up to 900,000 bpd from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. 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. It would interconnect with the northern and southern termini of the previously approved 298-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter Keystone Cushing Extension. The project would be placed into service in phases, the Gulf Coast segment in 2011, and the Steele City segment and the Houston Lateral in 2012. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations, each located on a five- to 10-acre site; 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 supplemental draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, alternative routes for the proposed 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability, and new information made available since publication of the draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (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 20,585 acres, including 11,533 acres of native and low quality grassland/rangeland/pastureland, 2,523 acres of forest land, and 5,404 acres of agriculture/cropland. Surface disturbance would affect soils that are both highly erodible and prone to compaction. Approximately 1,351 acres of upland and wetland wildlife habitats would be cleared and then recovered. Seven federally-listed plant species and 14 federally-listed animal species 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. 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: 110125, 353 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 34 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands 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 - Visual Resources 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/873130313?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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 - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 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 (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). [Part 9 of 50] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). AN - 873130283; 14881-5_0009 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a pipeline and related facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta to a new tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma and to existing terminals in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,380 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Initially, transport capacity would be 700,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil, and ultimately the pipeline would be capable of delivering up to 900,000 bpd from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. 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. It would interconnect with the northern and southern termini of the previously approved 298-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter Keystone Cushing Extension. The project would be placed into service in phases, the Gulf Coast segment in 2011, and the Steele City segment and the Houston Lateral in 2012. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations, each located on a five- to 10-acre site; 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 supplemental draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, alternative routes for the proposed 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability, and new information made available since publication of the draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (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 20,585 acres, including 11,533 acres of native and low quality grassland/rangeland/pastureland, 2,523 acres of forest land, and 5,404 acres of agriculture/cropland. Surface disturbance would affect soils that are both highly erodible and prone to compaction. Approximately 1,351 acres of upland and wetland wildlife habitats would be cleared and then recovered. Seven federally-listed plant species and 14 federally-listed animal species 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. 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: 110125, 353 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands 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 - Visual Resources 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/873130283?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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 - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 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 (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). [Part 8 of 50] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). AN - 873130271; 14881-5_0008 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a pipeline and related facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta to a new tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma and to existing terminals in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,380 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Initially, transport capacity would be 700,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil, and ultimately the pipeline would be capable of delivering up to 900,000 bpd from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. 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. It would interconnect with the northern and southern termini of the previously approved 298-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter Keystone Cushing Extension. The project would be placed into service in phases, the Gulf Coast segment in 2011, and the Steele City segment and the Houston Lateral in 2012. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations, each located on a five- to 10-acre site; 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 supplemental draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, alternative routes for the proposed 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability, and new information made available since publication of the draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (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 20,585 acres, including 11,533 acres of native and low quality grassland/rangeland/pastureland, 2,523 acres of forest land, and 5,404 acres of agriculture/cropland. Surface disturbance would affect soils that are both highly erodible and prone to compaction. Approximately 1,351 acres of upland and wetland wildlife habitats would be cleared and then recovered. Seven federally-listed plant species and 14 federally-listed animal species 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. 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: 110125, 353 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands 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 - Visual Resources 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/873130271?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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 - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 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 (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). [Part 27 of 50] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). AN - 873130265; 14881-5_0027 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a pipeline and related facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta to a new tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma and to existing terminals in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,380 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Initially, transport capacity would be 700,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil, and ultimately the pipeline would be capable of delivering up to 900,000 bpd from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. 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. It would interconnect with the northern and southern termini of the previously approved 298-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter Keystone Cushing Extension. The project would be placed into service in phases, the Gulf Coast segment in 2011, and the Steele City segment and the Houston Lateral in 2012. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations, each located on a five- to 10-acre site; 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 supplemental draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, alternative routes for the proposed 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability, and new information made available since publication of the draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (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 20,585 acres, including 11,533 acres of native and low quality grassland/rangeland/pastureland, 2,523 acres of forest land, and 5,404 acres of agriculture/cropland. Surface disturbance would affect soils that are both highly erodible and prone to compaction. Approximately 1,351 acres of upland and wetland wildlife habitats would be cleared and then recovered. Seven federally-listed plant species and 14 federally-listed animal species 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. 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: 110125, 353 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 27 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands 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 - Visual Resources 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/873130265?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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 - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 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 (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). [Part 7 of 50] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). AN - 873130260; 14881-5_0007 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a pipeline and related facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta to a new tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma and to existing terminals in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,380 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Initially, transport capacity would be 700,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil, and ultimately the pipeline would be capable of delivering up to 900,000 bpd from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. 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. It would interconnect with the northern and southern termini of the previously approved 298-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter Keystone Cushing Extension. The project would be placed into service in phases, the Gulf Coast segment in 2011, and the Steele City segment and the Houston Lateral in 2012. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations, each located on a five- to 10-acre site; 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 supplemental draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, alternative routes for the proposed 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability, and new information made available since publication of the draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (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 20,585 acres, including 11,533 acres of native and low quality grassland/rangeland/pastureland, 2,523 acres of forest land, and 5,404 acres of agriculture/cropland. Surface disturbance would affect soils that are both highly erodible and prone to compaction. Approximately 1,351 acres of upland and wetland wildlife habitats would be cleared and then recovered. Seven federally-listed plant species and 14 federally-listed animal species 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. 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: 110125, 353 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands 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 - Visual Resources 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/873130260?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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 - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 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 (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). [Part 26 of 50] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). AN - 873130251; 14881-5_0026 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a pipeline and related facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta to a new tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma and to existing terminals in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,380 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Initially, transport capacity would be 700,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil, and ultimately the pipeline would be capable of delivering up to 900,000 bpd from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. 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. It would interconnect with the northern and southern termini of the previously approved 298-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter Keystone Cushing Extension. The project would be placed into service in phases, the Gulf Coast segment in 2011, and the Steele City segment and the Houston Lateral in 2012. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations, each located on a five- to 10-acre site; 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 supplemental draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, alternative routes for the proposed 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability, and new information made available since publication of the draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (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 20,585 acres, including 11,533 acres of native and low quality grassland/rangeland/pastureland, 2,523 acres of forest land, and 5,404 acres of agriculture/cropland. Surface disturbance would affect soils that are both highly erodible and prone to compaction. Approximately 1,351 acres of upland and wetland wildlife habitats would be cleared and then recovered. Seven federally-listed plant species and 14 federally-listed animal species 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. 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: 110125, 353 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 26 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands 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 - Visual Resources 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/873130251?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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 - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 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 (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). [Part 25 of 50] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). AN - 873130244; 14881-5_0025 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a pipeline and related facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta to a new tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma and to existing terminals in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,380 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Initially, transport capacity would be 700,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil, and ultimately the pipeline would be capable of delivering up to 900,000 bpd from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. 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. It would interconnect with the northern and southern termini of the previously approved 298-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter Keystone Cushing Extension. The project would be placed into service in phases, the Gulf Coast segment in 2011, and the Steele City segment and the Houston Lateral in 2012. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations, each located on a five- to 10-acre site; 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 supplemental draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, alternative routes for the proposed 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability, and new information made available since publication of the draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (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 20,585 acres, including 11,533 acres of native and low quality grassland/rangeland/pastureland, 2,523 acres of forest land, and 5,404 acres of agriculture/cropland. Surface disturbance would affect soils that are both highly erodible and prone to compaction. Approximately 1,351 acres of upland and wetland wildlife habitats would be cleared and then recovered. Seven federally-listed plant species and 14 federally-listed animal species 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. 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: 110125, 353 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 25 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands 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 - Visual Resources 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/873130244?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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 - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 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 (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). [Part 49 of 50] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). AN - 873130235; 14881-5_0049 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a pipeline and related facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta to a new tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma and to existing terminals in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,380 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Initially, transport capacity would be 700,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil, and ultimately the pipeline would be capable of delivering up to 900,000 bpd from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. 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. It would interconnect with the northern and southern termini of the previously approved 298-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter Keystone Cushing Extension. The project would be placed into service in phases, the Gulf Coast segment in 2011, and the Steele City segment and the Houston Lateral in 2012. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations, each located on a five- to 10-acre site; 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 supplemental draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, alternative routes for the proposed 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability, and new information made available since publication of the draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (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 20,585 acres, including 11,533 acres of native and low quality grassland/rangeland/pastureland, 2,523 acres of forest land, and 5,404 acres of agriculture/cropland. Surface disturbance would affect soils that are both highly erodible and prone to compaction. Approximately 1,351 acres of upland and wetland wildlife habitats would be cleared and then recovered. Seven federally-listed plant species and 14 federally-listed animal species 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. 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: 110125, 353 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 49 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands 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 - Visual Resources 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/873130235?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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 - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 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 (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). [Part 48 of 50] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). AN - 873130205; 14881-5_0048 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a pipeline and related facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta to a new tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma and to existing terminals in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,380 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Initially, transport capacity would be 700,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil, and ultimately the pipeline would be capable of delivering up to 900,000 bpd from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. 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. It would interconnect with the northern and southern termini of the previously approved 298-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter Keystone Cushing Extension. The project would be placed into service in phases, the Gulf Coast segment in 2011, and the Steele City segment and the Houston Lateral in 2012. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations, each located on a five- to 10-acre site; 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 supplemental draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, alternative routes for the proposed 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability, and new information made available since publication of the draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (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 20,585 acres, including 11,533 acres of native and low quality grassland/rangeland/pastureland, 2,523 acres of forest land, and 5,404 acres of agriculture/cropland. Surface disturbance would affect soils that are both highly erodible and prone to compaction. Approximately 1,351 acres of upland and wetland wildlife habitats would be cleared and then recovered. Seven federally-listed plant species and 14 federally-listed animal species 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. 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: 110125, 353 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 48 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands 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 - Visual Resources 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/873130205?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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 - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 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 (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). [Part 19 of 50] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). AN - 873130204; 14881-5_0019 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a pipeline and related facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta to a new tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma and to existing terminals in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,380 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Initially, transport capacity would be 700,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil, and ultimately the pipeline would be capable of delivering up to 900,000 bpd from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. 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. It would interconnect with the northern and southern termini of the previously approved 298-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter Keystone Cushing Extension. The project would be placed into service in phases, the Gulf Coast segment in 2011, and the Steele City segment and the Houston Lateral in 2012. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations, each located on a five- to 10-acre site; 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 supplemental draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, alternative routes for the proposed 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability, and new information made available since publication of the draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (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 20,585 acres, including 11,533 acres of native and low quality grassland/rangeland/pastureland, 2,523 acres of forest land, and 5,404 acres of agriculture/cropland. Surface disturbance would affect soils that are both highly erodible and prone to compaction. Approximately 1,351 acres of upland and wetland wildlife habitats would be cleared and then recovered. Seven federally-listed plant species and 14 federally-listed animal species 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. 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: 110125, 353 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 19 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands 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 - Visual Resources 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/873130204?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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 - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 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 (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). [Part 18 of 50] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). AN - 873130190; 14881-5_0018 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a pipeline and related facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta to a new tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma and to existing terminals in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,380 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Initially, transport capacity would be 700,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil, and ultimately the pipeline would be capable of delivering up to 900,000 bpd from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. 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. It would interconnect with the northern and southern termini of the previously approved 298-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter Keystone Cushing Extension. The project would be placed into service in phases, the Gulf Coast segment in 2011, and the Steele City segment and the Houston Lateral in 2012. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations, each located on a five- to 10-acre site; 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 supplemental draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, alternative routes for the proposed 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability, and new information made available since publication of the draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (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 20,585 acres, including 11,533 acres of native and low quality grassland/rangeland/pastureland, 2,523 acres of forest land, and 5,404 acres of agriculture/cropland. Surface disturbance would affect soils that are both highly erodible and prone to compaction. Approximately 1,351 acres of upland and wetland wildlife habitats would be cleared and then recovered. Seven federally-listed plant species and 14 federally-listed animal species 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. 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: 110125, 353 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 18 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands 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 - Visual Resources 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/873130190?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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 - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 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 (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). [Part 17 of 50] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). AN - 873130180; 14881-5_0017 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a pipeline and related facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta to a new tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma and to existing terminals in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,380 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Initially, transport capacity would be 700,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil, and ultimately the pipeline would be capable of delivering up to 900,000 bpd from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. 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. It would interconnect with the northern and southern termini of the previously approved 298-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter Keystone Cushing Extension. The project would be placed into service in phases, the Gulf Coast segment in 2011, and the Steele City segment and the Houston Lateral in 2012. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations, each located on a five- to 10-acre site; 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 supplemental draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, alternative routes for the proposed 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability, and new information made available since publication of the draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (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 20,585 acres, including 11,533 acres of native and low quality grassland/rangeland/pastureland, 2,523 acres of forest land, and 5,404 acres of agriculture/cropland. Surface disturbance would affect soils that are both highly erodible and prone to compaction. Approximately 1,351 acres of upland and wetland wildlife habitats would be cleared and then recovered. Seven federally-listed plant species and 14 federally-listed animal species 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. 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: 110125, 353 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 17 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands 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 - Visual Resources 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/873130180?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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 - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 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 (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). [Part 16 of 50] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). AN - 873130160; 14881-5_0016 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a pipeline and related facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta to a new tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma and to existing terminals in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,380 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Initially, transport capacity would be 700,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil, and ultimately the pipeline would be capable of delivering up to 900,000 bpd from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. 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. It would interconnect with the northern and southern termini of the previously approved 298-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter Keystone Cushing Extension. The project would be placed into service in phases, the Gulf Coast segment in 2011, and the Steele City segment and the Houston Lateral in 2012. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations, each located on a five- to 10-acre site; 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 supplemental draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, alternative routes for the proposed 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability, and new information made available since publication of the draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (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 20,585 acres, including 11,533 acres of native and low quality grassland/rangeland/pastureland, 2,523 acres of forest land, and 5,404 acres of agriculture/cropland. Surface disturbance would affect soils that are both highly erodible and prone to compaction. Approximately 1,351 acres of upland and wetland wildlife habitats would be cleared and then recovered. Seven federally-listed plant species and 14 federally-listed animal species 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. 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: 110125, 353 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 16 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands 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 - Visual Resources 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/873130160?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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 - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 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 (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). [Part 46 of 50] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). AN - 873129864; 14881-5_0046 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a pipeline and related facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta to a new tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma and to existing terminals in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,380 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Initially, transport capacity would be 700,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil, and ultimately the pipeline would be capable of delivering up to 900,000 bpd from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. 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. It would interconnect with the northern and southern termini of the previously approved 298-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter Keystone Cushing Extension. The project would be placed into service in phases, the Gulf Coast segment in 2011, and the Steele City segment and the Houston Lateral in 2012. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations, each located on a five- to 10-acre site; 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 supplemental draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, alternative routes for the proposed 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability, and new information made available since publication of the draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (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 20,585 acres, including 11,533 acres of native and low quality grassland/rangeland/pastureland, 2,523 acres of forest land, and 5,404 acres of agriculture/cropland. Surface disturbance would affect soils that are both highly erodible and prone to compaction. Approximately 1,351 acres of upland and wetland wildlife habitats would be cleared and then recovered. Seven federally-listed plant species and 14 federally-listed animal species 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. 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: 110125, 353 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 46 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands 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 - Visual Resources 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/873129864?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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 - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 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 (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). [Part 24 of 50] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). AN - 873129828; 14881-5_0024 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a pipeline and related facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta to a new tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma and to existing terminals in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,380 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Initially, transport capacity would be 700,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil, and ultimately the pipeline would be capable of delivering up to 900,000 bpd from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. 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. It would interconnect with the northern and southern termini of the previously approved 298-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter Keystone Cushing Extension. The project would be placed into service in phases, the Gulf Coast segment in 2011, and the Steele City segment and the Houston Lateral in 2012. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations, each located on a five- to 10-acre site; 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 supplemental draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, alternative routes for the proposed 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability, and new information made available since publication of the draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (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 20,585 acres, including 11,533 acres of native and low quality grassland/rangeland/pastureland, 2,523 acres of forest land, and 5,404 acres of agriculture/cropland. Surface disturbance would affect soils that are both highly erodible and prone to compaction. Approximately 1,351 acres of upland and wetland wildlife habitats would be cleared and then recovered. Seven federally-listed plant species and 14 federally-listed animal species 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. 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: 110125, 353 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 24 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands 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 - Visual Resources 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/873129828?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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 - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MD 3 PROJECT PLANNING STUDY, FROM NORTH OF US 50 TO SOUTH OF MD 32, ANNE ARUNDEL AND PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTIES, MARYLAND. AN - 16385196; 14879 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the Maryland Route 3 (MD 3) corridor from north of US 50 to south of MD 32 in Anne Arundel and Prince George's counties, Maryland is proposed. The 9.28-mile MD 3 corridor provides a major north-south transportation facility in the southwestern portion of Anne Arundel County and the northeastern portion of Prince George's County. Traffic congestion, inadequate intersections, increased residential and commercial development, and the need for safe pedestrian and bicycle use of the corridor have accelerated the need for improvements to MD 3. A reevaluation of the 2004 draft EIS conducted in 2008 determined that the draft EIS remains valid and no supplemental EIS is required. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. Each build alternative has several interchange options. Alternative 3 would implement a boulevard concept, providing dualization of northbound MD 3 in Prince George's County, with existing southbound MD 3 being converted to a local service road. Three 11-foot lanes would be provided in each direction along the existing alignment through the remainder of the corridor, with continuous 16-foot auxiliary lanes and 10-foot shoulders where appropriate. Alternative 5 would implement a dualization concept as well, utilizing three, 11-foot lanes in each direction along existing MD 3 from US 50 to MD 424, with 16-foot auxiliary lands and 10-foot shoulders where appropriate. Dualization of southbound MD 3 from MD 424 to MD 32 would be included as part of the design, with existing northbound MD 3 converted to a local service road. The selected alternative is Alternative 3 with MD 450 interchange option A/B, Crawford/Cronson Boulevards interchange option A, MD 424 continuous flow intersection, Waugh Chapel/Reidel Road interchange option B modified, and MD 175/Millersville Road interchange option B modified. Construction costs are estimated at $651 million to $669 million. Right-of-way costs are estimated at $310 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve vehicular and pedestrian safety and travel within the MD 3 corridor, enhancing traffic flows on this important link in the Baltimore/Washington/Annapolis region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way requirements for the selected alternative would result in the displacement of 10 residences, 15 businesses, 11.1 acres of wetlands, and 82.5 acres of forested land. The facility would traverse eight streams and 50.3 acres of floodplain. Construction workers would encounter at least 13 hazardous materials sites. Fifteen residences would experience traffic-generated noise levels equal to or in excess of federal standards during the design year (2025). LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0442D, Volume 28, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110123, 538 pages and maps, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Creeks KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Maryland KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16385196?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MD+3+PROJECT+PLANNING+STUDY%2C+FROM+NORTH+OF+US+50+TO+SOUTH+OF+MD+32%2C+ANNE+ARUNDEL+AND+PRINCE+GEORGE%27S+COUNTIES%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=MD+3+PROJECT+PLANNING+STUDY%2C+FROM+NORTH+OF+US+50+TO+SOUTH+OF+MD+32%2C+ANNE+ARUNDEL+AND+PRINCE+GEORGE%27S+COUNTIES%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Baltimore, Maryland; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BANGERTER 600 WEST PROJECT, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 16375002; 14878 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 with access only at major signalized intersections, 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 because it carries large volumes of traffic (39,000 cars per day) within the study area between I-15 and the suburban communities in the southwestern Salt Lake Valley. 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 are analyzed in this draft EIS: a No Action Alternative, the 600 West Interchange with No Access at 200 West Alternative (Alternative 4E), the 600 West Interchange with Right Turns Only at 200 West Alternative (Alternative 4F), and the 600 West Interchange with 200 West Signal and No Left Turn Alternative (Alternative 4G). 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 the 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. The Utah Department of Transportation has identified the 600 West Interchange with Right Turns Only at 200 West Alterative (Alternative 4F) as their preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Improvements to Bangerter Highway in the area of 600 West would help meet the projected travel demand in 2030 and improve safety and regional mobility. 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 business-related impacts. 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: 110122, 510 pages and maps, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-11-01-D 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/16375002?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&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 - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 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 (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2010). AN - 15236548; 14881 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Presidential Permit for the construction and operation of a pipeline and related facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta to a new tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma and to existing terminals in the Port Arthur and east Houston areas of Texas is proposed. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. would construct the 36-inch-diameter oil pipeline across 327 miles in Canada and 1,380 miles within the United States, crossing the international border near Morgan, Montana. Initially, transport capacity would be 700,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil, and ultimately the pipeline would be capable of delivering up to 900,000 bpd from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. 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. It would interconnect with the northern and southern termini of the previously approved 298-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter Keystone Cushing Extension. The project would be placed into service in phases, the Gulf Coast segment in 2011, and the Steele City segment and the Houston Lateral in 2012. Project components would include: 30 new pump stations, each located on a five- to 10-acre site; 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 supplemental draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, alternative routes for the proposed 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability, and new information made available since publication of the draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (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 20,585 acres, including 11,533 acres of native and low quality grassland/rangeland/pastureland, 2,523 acres of forest land, and 5,404 acres of agriculture/cropland. Surface disturbance would affect soils that are both highly erodible and prone to compaction. Approximately 1,351 acres of upland and wetland wildlife habitats would be cleared and then recovered. Seven federally-listed plant species and 14 federally-listed animal species 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. 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: 110125, 353 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands 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 - Visual Resources 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/15236548?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2010%29.&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 - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Principles and Best Practices for Involving Stakeholders in Technically-Informed Participatory Decision Support Processes with Examples From the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia, Canada T2 - 2011 American Water Resources Association Spring Specialty Conference (AWRA 2011) AN - 1313027710; 6065982 JF - 2011 American Water Resources Association Spring Specialty Conference (AWRA 2011) AU - Langsdale, Stacy Y1 - 2011/04/18/ PY - 2011 DA - 2011 Apr 18 KW - Canada, British Columbia KW - Stakeholders KW - Decision support systems KW - best practices KW - Basins UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1313027710?accountid=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+American+Water+Resources+Association+Spring+Specialty+Conference+%28AWRA+2011%29&rft.atitle=Principles+and+Best+Practices+for+Involving+Stakeholders+in+Technically-Informed+Participatory+Decision+Support+Processes+with+Examples+From+the+Okanagan+Basin%2C+British+Columbia%2C+Canada&rft.au=Langsdale%2C+Stacy&rft.aulast=Langsdale&rft.aufirst=Stacy&rft.date=2011-04-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2011+American+Water+Resources+Association+Spring+Specialty+Conference+%28AWRA+2011%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.awra.org/meetings/Baltimore2011/doc/Baltimore2011FinalProgram.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 and Opportunities of Managing Climate Change Impacts on Water Resources T2 - 2011 American Water Resources Association Spring Specialty Conference (AWRA 2011) AN - 1313023228; 6065892 JF - 2011 American Water Resources Association Spring Specialty Conference (AWRA 2011) AU - Stockton, Steven Y1 - 2011/04/18/ PY - 2011 DA - 2011 Apr 18 KW - Climatic changes KW - Water resources KW - Water management UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1313023228?accountid=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+American+Water+Resources+Association+Spring+Specialty+Conference+%28AWRA+2011%29&rft.atitle=Challenges+and+Opportunities+of+Managing+Climate+Change+Impacts+on+Water+Resources&rft.au=Stockton%2C+Steven&rft.aulast=Stockton&rft.aufirst=Steven&rft.date=2011-04-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2011+American+Water+Resources+Association+Spring+Specialty+Conference+%28AWRA+2011%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.awra.org/meetings/Baltimore2011/doc/Baltimore2011FinalProgram.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2013-02-26 N1 - Last updated - 2013-02-28 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Risk-Informed Decision Making for Climate Change T2 - 2011 American Water Resources Association Spring Specialty Conference (AWRA 2011) AN - 1312992261; 6065937 JF - 2011 American Water Resources Association Spring Specialty Conference (AWRA 2011) AU - Olsen, J Y1 - 2011/04/18/ PY - 2011 DA - 2011 Apr 18 KW - USA KW - Climatic changes KW - Decision making UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1312992261?accountid=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+American+Water+Resources+Association+Spring+Specialty+Conference+%28AWRA+2011%29&rft.atitle=U.S.+Army+Corps+of+Engineers+Risk-Informed+Decision+Making+for+Climate+Change&rft.au=Olsen%2C+J&rft.aulast=Olsen&rft.aufirst=J&rft.date=2011-04-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2011+American+Water+Resources+Association+Spring+Specialty+Conference+%28AWRA+2011%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.awra.org/meetings/Baltimore2011/doc/Baltimore2011FinalProgram.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2013-02-26 N1 - Last updated - 2013-02-28 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Great Lakes Outflow Regulation and the Consideration of Uncertain Hydrologic Futures T2 - 2011 American Water Resources Association Spring Specialty Conference (AWRA 2011) AN - 1312991883; 6065922 JF - 2011 American Water Resources Association Spring Specialty Conference (AWRA 2011) AU - Eberhardt, Anthony Y1 - 2011/04/18/ PY - 2011 DA - 2011 Apr 18 KW - North America, Great Lakes KW - Outflow KW - Lakes UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1312991883?accountid=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+American+Water+Resources+Association+Spring+Specialty+Conference+%28AWRA+2011%29&rft.atitle=Great+Lakes+Outflow+Regulation+and+the+Consideration+of+Uncertain+Hydrologic+Futures&rft.au=Eberhardt%2C+Anthony&rft.aulast=Eberhardt&rft.aufirst=Anthony&rft.date=2011-04-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2011+American+Water+Resources+Association+Spring+Specialty+Conference+%28AWRA+2011%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.awra.org/meetings/Baltimore2011/doc/Baltimore2011FinalProgram.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2013-02-26 N1 - Last updated - 2013-02-28 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - The Impact of Climate on Water Supplies for U.S. Army Installations T2 - 2011 American Water Resources Association Spring Specialty Conference (AWRA 2011) AN - 1312991787; 6065911 JF - 2011 American Water Resources Association Spring Specialty Conference (AWRA 2011) AU - Jenicek, Elisabeth Y1 - 2011/04/18/ PY - 2011 DA - 2011 Apr 18 KW - USA KW - Water supplies KW - Climate UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1312991787?accountid=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+American+Water+Resources+Association+Spring+Specialty+Conference+%28AWRA+2011%29&rft.atitle=The+Impact+of+Climate+on+Water+Supplies+for+U.S.+Army+Installations&rft.au=Jenicek%2C+Elisabeth&rft.aulast=Jenicek&rft.aufirst=Elisabeth&rft.date=2011-04-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2011+American+Water+Resources+Association+Spring+Specialty+Conference+%28AWRA+2011%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.awra.org/meetings/Baltimore2011/doc/Baltimore2011FinalProgram.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2013-02-26 N1 - Last updated - 2013-02-28 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 33 of 40] T2 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 868224406; 14855-9_0033 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements to the South Capitol Street Corridor, including the replacement of the Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge over the Anacostia River, in the District of Columbia are proposed. The project would reconfigure South Capitol Street as an urban boulevard providing a grand, scenic gateway to the nation's capital. South Capitol Street was envisioned as one of the symbolic gateways to the city, but currently lacks any characteristics of its historic and intended function. As an urban freeway, it has become a conduit for through traffic at the expense of serving the needs of local residents and businesses. Transportation infrastructure is obsolete, in deteriorating condition, and fails to provide necessary connections to community destinations. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the preferred alternative, which is a refinement of Alternative 2 from the draft EIS, the project would: rebuild South Capitol Street as a six-lane boulevard west of the Anacostia River; reconstruct at-grade intersections along South Capitol Street at I, N, O, P, K, L and M streets; reconstruct the ramp from northbound South Capitol Street to Interstate 395 (I-395) as an at-grade intersection; construct a four-lane signalized traffic oval connecting South Capitol Street, Potomac Avenue and Q Street Southwest; and replace the existing Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge with an arched bascule bridge that includes bicycle and pedestrian access. A traffic circle would be constructed at the eastern approach to the new bridge to connect South Capitol Street, Suitland Parkway and Howard Road Southeast. Anacostia Drive would be extended to the north gate entrance of the U.S. Naval Support Facility Anacostia and an access road would be constructed from Anacostia Drive to Howard Road and the traffic circle. The existing Suitland Parkway/I-295 interchange would be replaced with a two-lane loop ramp for I-295 southbound at Suitland Parkway and a new traffic signal at the merge point with Suitland Parkway. Additionally, the I-295 bridge over South Capitol Street would be reconstructed, the I-295 bridge over Howard Road would be widened, the Martin Luther King, Jr. (MLK) Avenue overpass at Suitland Parkway would be widened to accommodate a new multi-use trail, a single-point center ramp interchange would create new access between Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue, the pedestrian over-pass over Suitland Parkway between Sheridan Road and Barry Farms would be reconstructed, and signed bicycle routes along New Jersey Avenue and throughout the project area would provide improved access to the Anacostia Riverwalk Trail, the riverfront, and historic Anacostia. Total construction costs are estimated at $806 million in fiscal year 2014 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would improve transportation safety, mobility, and access along the corridor. More complete connections between I-295 and Suitland Parkway, and Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue would enhance regional and local multi-modal mobility, allowing local streets to serve local traffic. Ongoing economic development activities related to new housing, employment, and recreation opportunities would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction impacts would include: travel pattern modifications for all modes of transportation; access changes; increased travel time; impacts to on-street parking; road closings; and temporary increases in noise levels, fugitive dust, and mobile source emissions. Right-of-way requirements would displace four commercial businesses. Nineteen hazardous waste sites would be encountered by construction workers and it is anticipated that some risk of subsurface contamination exists throughout the proposed construction area. Two historic resources, Suitland Parkway and the Plan of the City of Washington, would be adversely affected, but impacts would be mitigated. 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.), 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 08-0202D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110099, Final EIS--645 pages, Comments (Appendix 1)--475 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 33 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-DC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Urban Renewal KW - Anacostia River KW - District of Columbia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224406?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 2 of 40] T2 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 868224400; 14855-9_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements to the South Capitol Street Corridor, including the replacement of the Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge over the Anacostia River, in the District of Columbia are proposed. The project would reconfigure South Capitol Street as an urban boulevard providing a grand, scenic gateway to the nation's capital. South Capitol Street was envisioned as one of the symbolic gateways to the city, but currently lacks any characteristics of its historic and intended function. As an urban freeway, it has become a conduit for through traffic at the expense of serving the needs of local residents and businesses. Transportation infrastructure is obsolete, in deteriorating condition, and fails to provide necessary connections to community destinations. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the preferred alternative, which is a refinement of Alternative 2 from the draft EIS, the project would: rebuild South Capitol Street as a six-lane boulevard west of the Anacostia River; reconstruct at-grade intersections along South Capitol Street at I, N, O, P, K, L and M streets; reconstruct the ramp from northbound South Capitol Street to Interstate 395 (I-395) as an at-grade intersection; construct a four-lane signalized traffic oval connecting South Capitol Street, Potomac Avenue and Q Street Southwest; and replace the existing Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge with an arched bascule bridge that includes bicycle and pedestrian access. A traffic circle would be constructed at the eastern approach to the new bridge to connect South Capitol Street, Suitland Parkway and Howard Road Southeast. Anacostia Drive would be extended to the north gate entrance of the U.S. Naval Support Facility Anacostia and an access road would be constructed from Anacostia Drive to Howard Road and the traffic circle. The existing Suitland Parkway/I-295 interchange would be replaced with a two-lane loop ramp for I-295 southbound at Suitland Parkway and a new traffic signal at the merge point with Suitland Parkway. Additionally, the I-295 bridge over South Capitol Street would be reconstructed, the I-295 bridge over Howard Road would be widened, the Martin Luther King, Jr. (MLK) Avenue overpass at Suitland Parkway would be widened to accommodate a new multi-use trail, a single-point center ramp interchange would create new access between Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue, the pedestrian over-pass over Suitland Parkway between Sheridan Road and Barry Farms would be reconstructed, and signed bicycle routes along New Jersey Avenue and throughout the project area would provide improved access to the Anacostia Riverwalk Trail, the riverfront, and historic Anacostia. Total construction costs are estimated at $806 million in fiscal year 2014 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would improve transportation safety, mobility, and access along the corridor. More complete connections between I-295 and Suitland Parkway, and Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue would enhance regional and local multi-modal mobility, allowing local streets to serve local traffic. Ongoing economic development activities related to new housing, employment, and recreation opportunities would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction impacts would include: travel pattern modifications for all modes of transportation; access changes; increased travel time; impacts to on-street parking; road closings; and temporary increases in noise levels, fugitive dust, and mobile source emissions. Right-of-way requirements would displace four commercial businesses. Nineteen hazardous waste sites would be encountered by construction workers and it is anticipated that some risk of subsurface contamination exists throughout the proposed construction area. Two historic resources, Suitland Parkway and the Plan of the City of Washington, would be adversely affected, but impacts would be mitigated. 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.), 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 08-0202D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110099, Final EIS--645 pages, Comments (Appendix 1)--475 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-DC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Urban Renewal KW - Anacostia River KW - District of Columbia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224400?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 40 of 40] T2 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 868224397; 14855-9_0040 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements to the South Capitol Street Corridor, including the replacement of the Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge over the Anacostia River, in the District of Columbia are proposed. The project would reconfigure South Capitol Street as an urban boulevard providing a grand, scenic gateway to the nation's capital. South Capitol Street was envisioned as one of the symbolic gateways to the city, but currently lacks any characteristics of its historic and intended function. As an urban freeway, it has become a conduit for through traffic at the expense of serving the needs of local residents and businesses. Transportation infrastructure is obsolete, in deteriorating condition, and fails to provide necessary connections to community destinations. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the preferred alternative, which is a refinement of Alternative 2 from the draft EIS, the project would: rebuild South Capitol Street as a six-lane boulevard west of the Anacostia River; reconstruct at-grade intersections along South Capitol Street at I, N, O, P, K, L and M streets; reconstruct the ramp from northbound South Capitol Street to Interstate 395 (I-395) as an at-grade intersection; construct a four-lane signalized traffic oval connecting South Capitol Street, Potomac Avenue and Q Street Southwest; and replace the existing Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge with an arched bascule bridge that includes bicycle and pedestrian access. A traffic circle would be constructed at the eastern approach to the new bridge to connect South Capitol Street, Suitland Parkway and Howard Road Southeast. Anacostia Drive would be extended to the north gate entrance of the U.S. Naval Support Facility Anacostia and an access road would be constructed from Anacostia Drive to Howard Road and the traffic circle. The existing Suitland Parkway/I-295 interchange would be replaced with a two-lane loop ramp for I-295 southbound at Suitland Parkway and a new traffic signal at the merge point with Suitland Parkway. Additionally, the I-295 bridge over South Capitol Street would be reconstructed, the I-295 bridge over Howard Road would be widened, the Martin Luther King, Jr. (MLK) Avenue overpass at Suitland Parkway would be widened to accommodate a new multi-use trail, a single-point center ramp interchange would create new access between Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue, the pedestrian over-pass over Suitland Parkway between Sheridan Road and Barry Farms would be reconstructed, and signed bicycle routes along New Jersey Avenue and throughout the project area would provide improved access to the Anacostia Riverwalk Trail, the riverfront, and historic Anacostia. Total construction costs are estimated at $806 million in fiscal year 2014 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would improve transportation safety, mobility, and access along the corridor. More complete connections between I-295 and Suitland Parkway, and Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue would enhance regional and local multi-modal mobility, allowing local streets to serve local traffic. Ongoing economic development activities related to new housing, employment, and recreation opportunities would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction impacts would include: travel pattern modifications for all modes of transportation; access changes; increased travel time; impacts to on-street parking; road closings; and temporary increases in noise levels, fugitive dust, and mobile source emissions. Right-of-way requirements would displace four commercial businesses. Nineteen hazardous waste sites would be encountered by construction workers and it is anticipated that some risk of subsurface contamination exists throughout the proposed construction area. Two historic resources, Suitland Parkway and the Plan of the City of Washington, would be adversely affected, but impacts would be mitigated. 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.), 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 08-0202D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110099, Final EIS--645 pages, Comments (Appendix 1)--475 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 40 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-DC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Urban Renewal KW - Anacostia River KW - District of Columbia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224397?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 1 of 40] T2 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 868224395; 14855-9_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements to the South Capitol Street Corridor, including the replacement of the Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge over the Anacostia River, in the District of Columbia are proposed. The project would reconfigure South Capitol Street as an urban boulevard providing a grand, scenic gateway to the nation's capital. South Capitol Street was envisioned as one of the symbolic gateways to the city, but currently lacks any characteristics of its historic and intended function. As an urban freeway, it has become a conduit for through traffic at the expense of serving the needs of local residents and businesses. Transportation infrastructure is obsolete, in deteriorating condition, and fails to provide necessary connections to community destinations. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the preferred alternative, which is a refinement of Alternative 2 from the draft EIS, the project would: rebuild South Capitol Street as a six-lane boulevard west of the Anacostia River; reconstruct at-grade intersections along South Capitol Street at I, N, O, P, K, L and M streets; reconstruct the ramp from northbound South Capitol Street to Interstate 395 (I-395) as an at-grade intersection; construct a four-lane signalized traffic oval connecting South Capitol Street, Potomac Avenue and Q Street Southwest; and replace the existing Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge with an arched bascule bridge that includes bicycle and pedestrian access. A traffic circle would be constructed at the eastern approach to the new bridge to connect South Capitol Street, Suitland Parkway and Howard Road Southeast. Anacostia Drive would be extended to the north gate entrance of the U.S. Naval Support Facility Anacostia and an access road would be constructed from Anacostia Drive to Howard Road and the traffic circle. The existing Suitland Parkway/I-295 interchange would be replaced with a two-lane loop ramp for I-295 southbound at Suitland Parkway and a new traffic signal at the merge point with Suitland Parkway. Additionally, the I-295 bridge over South Capitol Street would be reconstructed, the I-295 bridge over Howard Road would be widened, the Martin Luther King, Jr. (MLK) Avenue overpass at Suitland Parkway would be widened to accommodate a new multi-use trail, a single-point center ramp interchange would create new access between Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue, the pedestrian over-pass over Suitland Parkway between Sheridan Road and Barry Farms would be reconstructed, and signed bicycle routes along New Jersey Avenue and throughout the project area would provide improved access to the Anacostia Riverwalk Trail, the riverfront, and historic Anacostia. Total construction costs are estimated at $806 million in fiscal year 2014 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would improve transportation safety, mobility, and access along the corridor. More complete connections between I-295 and Suitland Parkway, and Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue would enhance regional and local multi-modal mobility, allowing local streets to serve local traffic. Ongoing economic development activities related to new housing, employment, and recreation opportunities would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction impacts would include: travel pattern modifications for all modes of transportation; access changes; increased travel time; impacts to on-street parking; road closings; and temporary increases in noise levels, fugitive dust, and mobile source emissions. Right-of-way requirements would displace four commercial businesses. Nineteen hazardous waste sites would be encountered by construction workers and it is anticipated that some risk of subsurface contamination exists throughout the proposed construction area. Two historic resources, Suitland Parkway and the Plan of the City of Washington, would be adversely affected, but impacts would be mitigated. 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.), 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 08-0202D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110099, Final EIS--645 pages, Comments (Appendix 1)--475 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-DC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Urban Renewal KW - Anacostia River KW - District of Columbia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224395?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 6 of 40] T2 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 868224388; 14855-9_0006 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements to the South Capitol Street Corridor, including the replacement of the Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge over the Anacostia River, in the District of Columbia are proposed. The project would reconfigure South Capitol Street as an urban boulevard providing a grand, scenic gateway to the nation's capital. South Capitol Street was envisioned as one of the symbolic gateways to the city, but currently lacks any characteristics of its historic and intended function. As an urban freeway, it has become a conduit for through traffic at the expense of serving the needs of local residents and businesses. Transportation infrastructure is obsolete, in deteriorating condition, and fails to provide necessary connections to community destinations. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the preferred alternative, which is a refinement of Alternative 2 from the draft EIS, the project would: rebuild South Capitol Street as a six-lane boulevard west of the Anacostia River; reconstruct at-grade intersections along South Capitol Street at I, N, O, P, K, L and M streets; reconstruct the ramp from northbound South Capitol Street to Interstate 395 (I-395) as an at-grade intersection; construct a four-lane signalized traffic oval connecting South Capitol Street, Potomac Avenue and Q Street Southwest; and replace the existing Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge with an arched bascule bridge that includes bicycle and pedestrian access. A traffic circle would be constructed at the eastern approach to the new bridge to connect South Capitol Street, Suitland Parkway and Howard Road Southeast. Anacostia Drive would be extended to the north gate entrance of the U.S. Naval Support Facility Anacostia and an access road would be constructed from Anacostia Drive to Howard Road and the traffic circle. The existing Suitland Parkway/I-295 interchange would be replaced with a two-lane loop ramp for I-295 southbound at Suitland Parkway and a new traffic signal at the merge point with Suitland Parkway. Additionally, the I-295 bridge over South Capitol Street would be reconstructed, the I-295 bridge over Howard Road would be widened, the Martin Luther King, Jr. (MLK) Avenue overpass at Suitland Parkway would be widened to accommodate a new multi-use trail, a single-point center ramp interchange would create new access between Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue, the pedestrian over-pass over Suitland Parkway between Sheridan Road and Barry Farms would be reconstructed, and signed bicycle routes along New Jersey Avenue and throughout the project area would provide improved access to the Anacostia Riverwalk Trail, the riverfront, and historic Anacostia. Total construction costs are estimated at $806 million in fiscal year 2014 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would improve transportation safety, mobility, and access along the corridor. More complete connections between I-295 and Suitland Parkway, and Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue would enhance regional and local multi-modal mobility, allowing local streets to serve local traffic. Ongoing economic development activities related to new housing, employment, and recreation opportunities would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction impacts would include: travel pattern modifications for all modes of transportation; access changes; increased travel time; impacts to on-street parking; road closings; and temporary increases in noise levels, fugitive dust, and mobile source emissions. Right-of-way requirements would displace four commercial businesses. Nineteen hazardous waste sites would be encountered by construction workers and it is anticipated that some risk of subsurface contamination exists throughout the proposed construction area. Two historic resources, Suitland Parkway and the Plan of the City of Washington, would be adversely affected, but impacts would be mitigated. 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.), 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 08-0202D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110099, Final EIS--645 pages, Comments (Appendix 1)--475 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-DC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Urban Renewal KW - Anacostia River KW - District of Columbia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224388?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 5 of 40] T2 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 868224385; 14855-9_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements to the South Capitol Street Corridor, including the replacement of the Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge over the Anacostia River, in the District of Columbia are proposed. The project would reconfigure South Capitol Street as an urban boulevard providing a grand, scenic gateway to the nation's capital. South Capitol Street was envisioned as one of the symbolic gateways to the city, but currently lacks any characteristics of its historic and intended function. As an urban freeway, it has become a conduit for through traffic at the expense of serving the needs of local residents and businesses. Transportation infrastructure is obsolete, in deteriorating condition, and fails to provide necessary connections to community destinations. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the preferred alternative, which is a refinement of Alternative 2 from the draft EIS, the project would: rebuild South Capitol Street as a six-lane boulevard west of the Anacostia River; reconstruct at-grade intersections along South Capitol Street at I, N, O, P, K, L and M streets; reconstruct the ramp from northbound South Capitol Street to Interstate 395 (I-395) as an at-grade intersection; construct a four-lane signalized traffic oval connecting South Capitol Street, Potomac Avenue and Q Street Southwest; and replace the existing Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge with an arched bascule bridge that includes bicycle and pedestrian access. A traffic circle would be constructed at the eastern approach to the new bridge to connect South Capitol Street, Suitland Parkway and Howard Road Southeast. Anacostia Drive would be extended to the north gate entrance of the U.S. Naval Support Facility Anacostia and an access road would be constructed from Anacostia Drive to Howard Road and the traffic circle. The existing Suitland Parkway/I-295 interchange would be replaced with a two-lane loop ramp for I-295 southbound at Suitland Parkway and a new traffic signal at the merge point with Suitland Parkway. Additionally, the I-295 bridge over South Capitol Street would be reconstructed, the I-295 bridge over Howard Road would be widened, the Martin Luther King, Jr. (MLK) Avenue overpass at Suitland Parkway would be widened to accommodate a new multi-use trail, a single-point center ramp interchange would create new access between Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue, the pedestrian over-pass over Suitland Parkway between Sheridan Road and Barry Farms would be reconstructed, and signed bicycle routes along New Jersey Avenue and throughout the project area would provide improved access to the Anacostia Riverwalk Trail, the riverfront, and historic Anacostia. Total construction costs are estimated at $806 million in fiscal year 2014 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would improve transportation safety, mobility, and access along the corridor. More complete connections between I-295 and Suitland Parkway, and Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue would enhance regional and local multi-modal mobility, allowing local streets to serve local traffic. Ongoing economic development activities related to new housing, employment, and recreation opportunities would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction impacts would include: travel pattern modifications for all modes of transportation; access changes; increased travel time; impacts to on-street parking; road closings; and temporary increases in noise levels, fugitive dust, and mobile source emissions. Right-of-way requirements would displace four commercial businesses. Nineteen hazardous waste sites would be encountered by construction workers and it is anticipated that some risk of subsurface contamination exists throughout the proposed construction area. Two historic resources, Suitland Parkway and the Plan of the City of Washington, would be adversely affected, but impacts would be mitigated. 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.), 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 08-0202D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110099, Final EIS--645 pages, Comments (Appendix 1)--475 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-DC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Urban Renewal KW - Anacostia River KW - District of Columbia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224385?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 4 of 40] T2 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 868224384; 14855-9_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements to the South Capitol Street Corridor, including the replacement of the Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge over the Anacostia River, in the District of Columbia are proposed. The project would reconfigure South Capitol Street as an urban boulevard providing a grand, scenic gateway to the nation's capital. South Capitol Street was envisioned as one of the symbolic gateways to the city, but currently lacks any characteristics of its historic and intended function. As an urban freeway, it has become a conduit for through traffic at the expense of serving the needs of local residents and businesses. Transportation infrastructure is obsolete, in deteriorating condition, and fails to provide necessary connections to community destinations. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the preferred alternative, which is a refinement of Alternative 2 from the draft EIS, the project would: rebuild South Capitol Street as a six-lane boulevard west of the Anacostia River; reconstruct at-grade intersections along South Capitol Street at I, N, O, P, K, L and M streets; reconstruct the ramp from northbound South Capitol Street to Interstate 395 (I-395) as an at-grade intersection; construct a four-lane signalized traffic oval connecting South Capitol Street, Potomac Avenue and Q Street Southwest; and replace the existing Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge with an arched bascule bridge that includes bicycle and pedestrian access. A traffic circle would be constructed at the eastern approach to the new bridge to connect South Capitol Street, Suitland Parkway and Howard Road Southeast. Anacostia Drive would be extended to the north gate entrance of the U.S. Naval Support Facility Anacostia and an access road would be constructed from Anacostia Drive to Howard Road and the traffic circle. The existing Suitland Parkway/I-295 interchange would be replaced with a two-lane loop ramp for I-295 southbound at Suitland Parkway and a new traffic signal at the merge point with Suitland Parkway. Additionally, the I-295 bridge over South Capitol Street would be reconstructed, the I-295 bridge over Howard Road would be widened, the Martin Luther King, Jr. (MLK) Avenue overpass at Suitland Parkway would be widened to accommodate a new multi-use trail, a single-point center ramp interchange would create new access between Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue, the pedestrian over-pass over Suitland Parkway between Sheridan Road and Barry Farms would be reconstructed, and signed bicycle routes along New Jersey Avenue and throughout the project area would provide improved access to the Anacostia Riverwalk Trail, the riverfront, and historic Anacostia. Total construction costs are estimated at $806 million in fiscal year 2014 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would improve transportation safety, mobility, and access along the corridor. More complete connections between I-295 and Suitland Parkway, and Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue would enhance regional and local multi-modal mobility, allowing local streets to serve local traffic. Ongoing economic development activities related to new housing, employment, and recreation opportunities would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction impacts would include: travel pattern modifications for all modes of transportation; access changes; increased travel time; impacts to on-street parking; road closings; and temporary increases in noise levels, fugitive dust, and mobile source emissions. Right-of-way requirements would displace four commercial businesses. Nineteen hazardous waste sites would be encountered by construction workers and it is anticipated that some risk of subsurface contamination exists throughout the proposed construction area. Two historic resources, Suitland Parkway and the Plan of the City of Washington, would be adversely affected, but impacts would be mitigated. 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.), 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 08-0202D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110099, Final EIS--645 pages, Comments (Appendix 1)--475 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-DC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Urban Renewal KW - Anacostia River KW - District of Columbia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224384?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 3 of 40] T2 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 868224381; 14855-9_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements to the South Capitol Street Corridor, including the replacement of the Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge over the Anacostia River, in the District of Columbia are proposed. The project would reconfigure South Capitol Street as an urban boulevard providing a grand, scenic gateway to the nation's capital. South Capitol Street was envisioned as one of the symbolic gateways to the city, but currently lacks any characteristics of its historic and intended function. As an urban freeway, it has become a conduit for through traffic at the expense of serving the needs of local residents and businesses. Transportation infrastructure is obsolete, in deteriorating condition, and fails to provide necessary connections to community destinations. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the preferred alternative, which is a refinement of Alternative 2 from the draft EIS, the project would: rebuild South Capitol Street as a six-lane boulevard west of the Anacostia River; reconstruct at-grade intersections along South Capitol Street at I, N, O, P, K, L and M streets; reconstruct the ramp from northbound South Capitol Street to Interstate 395 (I-395) as an at-grade intersection; construct a four-lane signalized traffic oval connecting South Capitol Street, Potomac Avenue and Q Street Southwest; and replace the existing Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge with an arched bascule bridge that includes bicycle and pedestrian access. A traffic circle would be constructed at the eastern approach to the new bridge to connect South Capitol Street, Suitland Parkway and Howard Road Southeast. Anacostia Drive would be extended to the north gate entrance of the U.S. Naval Support Facility Anacostia and an access road would be constructed from Anacostia Drive to Howard Road and the traffic circle. The existing Suitland Parkway/I-295 interchange would be replaced with a two-lane loop ramp for I-295 southbound at Suitland Parkway and a new traffic signal at the merge point with Suitland Parkway. Additionally, the I-295 bridge over South Capitol Street would be reconstructed, the I-295 bridge over Howard Road would be widened, the Martin Luther King, Jr. (MLK) Avenue overpass at Suitland Parkway would be widened to accommodate a new multi-use trail, a single-point center ramp interchange would create new access between Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue, the pedestrian over-pass over Suitland Parkway between Sheridan Road and Barry Farms would be reconstructed, and signed bicycle routes along New Jersey Avenue and throughout the project area would provide improved access to the Anacostia Riverwalk Trail, the riverfront, and historic Anacostia. Total construction costs are estimated at $806 million in fiscal year 2014 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would improve transportation safety, mobility, and access along the corridor. More complete connections between I-295 and Suitland Parkway, and Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue would enhance regional and local multi-modal mobility, allowing local streets to serve local traffic. Ongoing economic development activities related to new housing, employment, and recreation opportunities would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction impacts would include: travel pattern modifications for all modes of transportation; access changes; increased travel time; impacts to on-street parking; road closings; and temporary increases in noise levels, fugitive dust, and mobile source emissions. Right-of-way requirements would displace four commercial businesses. Nineteen hazardous waste sites would be encountered by construction workers and it is anticipated that some risk of subsurface contamination exists throughout the proposed construction area. Two historic resources, Suitland Parkway and the Plan of the City of Washington, would be adversely affected, but impacts would be mitigated. 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.), 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 08-0202D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110099, Final EIS--645 pages, Comments (Appendix 1)--475 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-DC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Urban Renewal KW - Anacostia River KW - District of Columbia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224381?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 18 of 40] T2 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 868224302; 14855-9_0018 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements to the South Capitol Street Corridor, including the replacement of the Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge over the Anacostia River, in the District of Columbia are proposed. The project would reconfigure South Capitol Street as an urban boulevard providing a grand, scenic gateway to the nation's capital. South Capitol Street was envisioned as one of the symbolic gateways to the city, but currently lacks any characteristics of its historic and intended function. As an urban freeway, it has become a conduit for through traffic at the expense of serving the needs of local residents and businesses. Transportation infrastructure is obsolete, in deteriorating condition, and fails to provide necessary connections to community destinations. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the preferred alternative, which is a refinement of Alternative 2 from the draft EIS, the project would: rebuild South Capitol Street as a six-lane boulevard west of the Anacostia River; reconstruct at-grade intersections along South Capitol Street at I, N, O, P, K, L and M streets; reconstruct the ramp from northbound South Capitol Street to Interstate 395 (I-395) as an at-grade intersection; construct a four-lane signalized traffic oval connecting South Capitol Street, Potomac Avenue and Q Street Southwest; and replace the existing Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge with an arched bascule bridge that includes bicycle and pedestrian access. A traffic circle would be constructed at the eastern approach to the new bridge to connect South Capitol Street, Suitland Parkway and Howard Road Southeast. Anacostia Drive would be extended to the north gate entrance of the U.S. Naval Support Facility Anacostia and an access road would be constructed from Anacostia Drive to Howard Road and the traffic circle. The existing Suitland Parkway/I-295 interchange would be replaced with a two-lane loop ramp for I-295 southbound at Suitland Parkway and a new traffic signal at the merge point with Suitland Parkway. Additionally, the I-295 bridge over South Capitol Street would be reconstructed, the I-295 bridge over Howard Road would be widened, the Martin Luther King, Jr. (MLK) Avenue overpass at Suitland Parkway would be widened to accommodate a new multi-use trail, a single-point center ramp interchange would create new access between Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue, the pedestrian over-pass over Suitland Parkway between Sheridan Road and Barry Farms would be reconstructed, and signed bicycle routes along New Jersey Avenue and throughout the project area would provide improved access to the Anacostia Riverwalk Trail, the riverfront, and historic Anacostia. Total construction costs are estimated at $806 million in fiscal year 2014 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would improve transportation safety, mobility, and access along the corridor. More complete connections between I-295 and Suitland Parkway, and Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue would enhance regional and local multi-modal mobility, allowing local streets to serve local traffic. Ongoing economic development activities related to new housing, employment, and recreation opportunities would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction impacts would include: travel pattern modifications for all modes of transportation; access changes; increased travel time; impacts to on-street parking; road closings; and temporary increases in noise levels, fugitive dust, and mobile source emissions. Right-of-way requirements would displace four commercial businesses. Nineteen hazardous waste sites would be encountered by construction workers and it is anticipated that some risk of subsurface contamination exists throughout the proposed construction area. Two historic resources, Suitland Parkway and the Plan of the City of Washington, would be adversely affected, but impacts would be mitigated. 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.), 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 08-0202D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110099, Final EIS--645 pages, Comments (Appendix 1)--475 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 18 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-DC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Urban Renewal KW - Anacostia River KW - District of Columbia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224302?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 17 of 40] T2 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 868224296; 14855-9_0017 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements to the South Capitol Street Corridor, including the replacement of the Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge over the Anacostia River, in the District of Columbia are proposed. The project would reconfigure South Capitol Street as an urban boulevard providing a grand, scenic gateway to the nation's capital. South Capitol Street was envisioned as one of the symbolic gateways to the city, but currently lacks any characteristics of its historic and intended function. As an urban freeway, it has become a conduit for through traffic at the expense of serving the needs of local residents and businesses. Transportation infrastructure is obsolete, in deteriorating condition, and fails to provide necessary connections to community destinations. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the preferred alternative, which is a refinement of Alternative 2 from the draft EIS, the project would: rebuild South Capitol Street as a six-lane boulevard west of the Anacostia River; reconstruct at-grade intersections along South Capitol Street at I, N, O, P, K, L and M streets; reconstruct the ramp from northbound South Capitol Street to Interstate 395 (I-395) as an at-grade intersection; construct a four-lane signalized traffic oval connecting South Capitol Street, Potomac Avenue and Q Street Southwest; and replace the existing Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge with an arched bascule bridge that includes bicycle and pedestrian access. A traffic circle would be constructed at the eastern approach to the new bridge to connect South Capitol Street, Suitland Parkway and Howard Road Southeast. Anacostia Drive would be extended to the north gate entrance of the U.S. Naval Support Facility Anacostia and an access road would be constructed from Anacostia Drive to Howard Road and the traffic circle. The existing Suitland Parkway/I-295 interchange would be replaced with a two-lane loop ramp for I-295 southbound at Suitland Parkway and a new traffic signal at the merge point with Suitland Parkway. Additionally, the I-295 bridge over South Capitol Street would be reconstructed, the I-295 bridge over Howard Road would be widened, the Martin Luther King, Jr. (MLK) Avenue overpass at Suitland Parkway would be widened to accommodate a new multi-use trail, a single-point center ramp interchange would create new access between Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue, the pedestrian over-pass over Suitland Parkway between Sheridan Road and Barry Farms would be reconstructed, and signed bicycle routes along New Jersey Avenue and throughout the project area would provide improved access to the Anacostia Riverwalk Trail, the riverfront, and historic Anacostia. Total construction costs are estimated at $806 million in fiscal year 2014 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would improve transportation safety, mobility, and access along the corridor. More complete connections between I-295 and Suitland Parkway, and Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue would enhance regional and local multi-modal mobility, allowing local streets to serve local traffic. Ongoing economic development activities related to new housing, employment, and recreation opportunities would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction impacts would include: travel pattern modifications for all modes of transportation; access changes; increased travel time; impacts to on-street parking; road closings; and temporary increases in noise levels, fugitive dust, and mobile source emissions. Right-of-way requirements would displace four commercial businesses. Nineteen hazardous waste sites would be encountered by construction workers and it is anticipated that some risk of subsurface contamination exists throughout the proposed construction area. Two historic resources, Suitland Parkway and the Plan of the City of Washington, would be adversely affected, but impacts would be mitigated. 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.), 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 08-0202D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110099, Final EIS--645 pages, Comments (Appendix 1)--475 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 17 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-DC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Urban Renewal KW - Anacostia River KW - District of Columbia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224296?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 16 of 40] T2 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 868224290; 14855-9_0016 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements to the South Capitol Street Corridor, including the replacement of the Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge over the Anacostia River, in the District of Columbia are proposed. The project would reconfigure South Capitol Street as an urban boulevard providing a grand, scenic gateway to the nation's capital. South Capitol Street was envisioned as one of the symbolic gateways to the city, but currently lacks any characteristics of its historic and intended function. As an urban freeway, it has become a conduit for through traffic at the expense of serving the needs of local residents and businesses. Transportation infrastructure is obsolete, in deteriorating condition, and fails to provide necessary connections to community destinations. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the preferred alternative, which is a refinement of Alternative 2 from the draft EIS, the project would: rebuild South Capitol Street as a six-lane boulevard west of the Anacostia River; reconstruct at-grade intersections along South Capitol Street at I, N, O, P, K, L and M streets; reconstruct the ramp from northbound South Capitol Street to Interstate 395 (I-395) as an at-grade intersection; construct a four-lane signalized traffic oval connecting South Capitol Street, Potomac Avenue and Q Street Southwest; and replace the existing Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge with an arched bascule bridge that includes bicycle and pedestrian access. A traffic circle would be constructed at the eastern approach to the new bridge to connect South Capitol Street, Suitland Parkway and Howard Road Southeast. Anacostia Drive would be extended to the north gate entrance of the U.S. Naval Support Facility Anacostia and an access road would be constructed from Anacostia Drive to Howard Road and the traffic circle. The existing Suitland Parkway/I-295 interchange would be replaced with a two-lane loop ramp for I-295 southbound at Suitland Parkway and a new traffic signal at the merge point with Suitland Parkway. Additionally, the I-295 bridge over South Capitol Street would be reconstructed, the I-295 bridge over Howard Road would be widened, the Martin Luther King, Jr. (MLK) Avenue overpass at Suitland Parkway would be widened to accommodate a new multi-use trail, a single-point center ramp interchange would create new access between Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue, the pedestrian over-pass over Suitland Parkway between Sheridan Road and Barry Farms would be reconstructed, and signed bicycle routes along New Jersey Avenue and throughout the project area would provide improved access to the Anacostia Riverwalk Trail, the riverfront, and historic Anacostia. Total construction costs are estimated at $806 million in fiscal year 2014 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would improve transportation safety, mobility, and access along the corridor. More complete connections between I-295 and Suitland Parkway, and Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue would enhance regional and local multi-modal mobility, allowing local streets to serve local traffic. Ongoing economic development activities related to new housing, employment, and recreation opportunities would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction impacts would include: travel pattern modifications for all modes of transportation; access changes; increased travel time; impacts to on-street parking; road closings; and temporary increases in noise levels, fugitive dust, and mobile source emissions. Right-of-way requirements would displace four commercial businesses. Nineteen hazardous waste sites would be encountered by construction workers and it is anticipated that some risk of subsurface contamination exists throughout the proposed construction area. Two historic resources, Suitland Parkway and the Plan of the City of Washington, would be adversely affected, but impacts would be mitigated. 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.), 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 08-0202D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110099, Final EIS--645 pages, Comments (Appendix 1)--475 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 16 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-DC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Urban Renewal KW - Anacostia River KW - District of Columbia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224290?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 15 of 40] T2 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 868224283; 14855-9_0015 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements to the South Capitol Street Corridor, including the replacement of the Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge over the Anacostia River, in the District of Columbia are proposed. The project would reconfigure South Capitol Street as an urban boulevard providing a grand, scenic gateway to the nation's capital. South Capitol Street was envisioned as one of the symbolic gateways to the city, but currently lacks any characteristics of its historic and intended function. As an urban freeway, it has become a conduit for through traffic at the expense of serving the needs of local residents and businesses. Transportation infrastructure is obsolete, in deteriorating condition, and fails to provide necessary connections to community destinations. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the preferred alternative, which is a refinement of Alternative 2 from the draft EIS, the project would: rebuild South Capitol Street as a six-lane boulevard west of the Anacostia River; reconstruct at-grade intersections along South Capitol Street at I, N, O, P, K, L and M streets; reconstruct the ramp from northbound South Capitol Street to Interstate 395 (I-395) as an at-grade intersection; construct a four-lane signalized traffic oval connecting South Capitol Street, Potomac Avenue and Q Street Southwest; and replace the existing Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge with an arched bascule bridge that includes bicycle and pedestrian access. A traffic circle would be constructed at the eastern approach to the new bridge to connect South Capitol Street, Suitland Parkway and Howard Road Southeast. Anacostia Drive would be extended to the north gate entrance of the U.S. Naval Support Facility Anacostia and an access road would be constructed from Anacostia Drive to Howard Road and the traffic circle. The existing Suitland Parkway/I-295 interchange would be replaced with a two-lane loop ramp for I-295 southbound at Suitland Parkway and a new traffic signal at the merge point with Suitland Parkway. Additionally, the I-295 bridge over South Capitol Street would be reconstructed, the I-295 bridge over Howard Road would be widened, the Martin Luther King, Jr. (MLK) Avenue overpass at Suitland Parkway would be widened to accommodate a new multi-use trail, a single-point center ramp interchange would create new access between Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue, the pedestrian over-pass over Suitland Parkway between Sheridan Road and Barry Farms would be reconstructed, and signed bicycle routes along New Jersey Avenue and throughout the project area would provide improved access to the Anacostia Riverwalk Trail, the riverfront, and historic Anacostia. Total construction costs are estimated at $806 million in fiscal year 2014 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would improve transportation safety, mobility, and access along the corridor. More complete connections between I-295 and Suitland Parkway, and Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue would enhance regional and local multi-modal mobility, allowing local streets to serve local traffic. Ongoing economic development activities related to new housing, employment, and recreation opportunities would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction impacts would include: travel pattern modifications for all modes of transportation; access changes; increased travel time; impacts to on-street parking; road closings; and temporary increases in noise levels, fugitive dust, and mobile source emissions. Right-of-way requirements would displace four commercial businesses. Nineteen hazardous waste sites would be encountered by construction workers and it is anticipated that some risk of subsurface contamination exists throughout the proposed construction area. Two historic resources, Suitland Parkway and the Plan of the City of Washington, would be adversely affected, but impacts would be mitigated. 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.), 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 08-0202D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110099, Final EIS--645 pages, Comments (Appendix 1)--475 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-DC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Urban Renewal KW - Anacostia River KW - District of Columbia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224283?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 14 of 40] T2 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 868224281; 14855-9_0014 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements to the South Capitol Street Corridor, including the replacement of the Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge over the Anacostia River, in the District of Columbia are proposed. The project would reconfigure South Capitol Street as an urban boulevard providing a grand, scenic gateway to the nation's capital. South Capitol Street was envisioned as one of the symbolic gateways to the city, but currently lacks any characteristics of its historic and intended function. As an urban freeway, it has become a conduit for through traffic at the expense of serving the needs of local residents and businesses. Transportation infrastructure is obsolete, in deteriorating condition, and fails to provide necessary connections to community destinations. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the preferred alternative, which is a refinement of Alternative 2 from the draft EIS, the project would: rebuild South Capitol Street as a six-lane boulevard west of the Anacostia River; reconstruct at-grade intersections along South Capitol Street at I, N, O, P, K, L and M streets; reconstruct the ramp from northbound South Capitol Street to Interstate 395 (I-395) as an at-grade intersection; construct a four-lane signalized traffic oval connecting South Capitol Street, Potomac Avenue and Q Street Southwest; and replace the existing Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge with an arched bascule bridge that includes bicycle and pedestrian access. A traffic circle would be constructed at the eastern approach to the new bridge to connect South Capitol Street, Suitland Parkway and Howard Road Southeast. Anacostia Drive would be extended to the north gate entrance of the U.S. Naval Support Facility Anacostia and an access road would be constructed from Anacostia Drive to Howard Road and the traffic circle. The existing Suitland Parkway/I-295 interchange would be replaced with a two-lane loop ramp for I-295 southbound at Suitland Parkway and a new traffic signal at the merge point with Suitland Parkway. Additionally, the I-295 bridge over South Capitol Street would be reconstructed, the I-295 bridge over Howard Road would be widened, the Martin Luther King, Jr. (MLK) Avenue overpass at Suitland Parkway would be widened to accommodate a new multi-use trail, a single-point center ramp interchange would create new access between Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue, the pedestrian over-pass over Suitland Parkway between Sheridan Road and Barry Farms would be reconstructed, and signed bicycle routes along New Jersey Avenue and throughout the project area would provide improved access to the Anacostia Riverwalk Trail, the riverfront, and historic Anacostia. Total construction costs are estimated at $806 million in fiscal year 2014 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would improve transportation safety, mobility, and access along the corridor. More complete connections between I-295 and Suitland Parkway, and Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue would enhance regional and local multi-modal mobility, allowing local streets to serve local traffic. Ongoing economic development activities related to new housing, employment, and recreation opportunities would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction impacts would include: travel pattern modifications for all modes of transportation; access changes; increased travel time; impacts to on-street parking; road closings; and temporary increases in noise levels, fugitive dust, and mobile source emissions. Right-of-way requirements would displace four commercial businesses. Nineteen hazardous waste sites would be encountered by construction workers and it is anticipated that some risk of subsurface contamination exists throughout the proposed construction area. Two historic resources, Suitland Parkway and the Plan of the City of Washington, would be adversely affected, but impacts would be mitigated. 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.), 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 08-0202D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110099, Final EIS--645 pages, Comments (Appendix 1)--475 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-DC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Urban Renewal KW - Anacostia River KW - District of Columbia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224281?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 13 of 40] T2 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 868224277; 14855-9_0013 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements to the South Capitol Street Corridor, including the replacement of the Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge over the Anacostia River, in the District of Columbia are proposed. The project would reconfigure South Capitol Street as an urban boulevard providing a grand, scenic gateway to the nation's capital. South Capitol Street was envisioned as one of the symbolic gateways to the city, but currently lacks any characteristics of its historic and intended function. As an urban freeway, it has become a conduit for through traffic at the expense of serving the needs of local residents and businesses. Transportation infrastructure is obsolete, in deteriorating condition, and fails to provide necessary connections to community destinations. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the preferred alternative, which is a refinement of Alternative 2 from the draft EIS, the project would: rebuild South Capitol Street as a six-lane boulevard west of the Anacostia River; reconstruct at-grade intersections along South Capitol Street at I, N, O, P, K, L and M streets; reconstruct the ramp from northbound South Capitol Street to Interstate 395 (I-395) as an at-grade intersection; construct a four-lane signalized traffic oval connecting South Capitol Street, Potomac Avenue and Q Street Southwest; and replace the existing Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge with an arched bascule bridge that includes bicycle and pedestrian access. A traffic circle would be constructed at the eastern approach to the new bridge to connect South Capitol Street, Suitland Parkway and Howard Road Southeast. Anacostia Drive would be extended to the north gate entrance of the U.S. Naval Support Facility Anacostia and an access road would be constructed from Anacostia Drive to Howard Road and the traffic circle. The existing Suitland Parkway/I-295 interchange would be replaced with a two-lane loop ramp for I-295 southbound at Suitland Parkway and a new traffic signal at the merge point with Suitland Parkway. Additionally, the I-295 bridge over South Capitol Street would be reconstructed, the I-295 bridge over Howard Road would be widened, the Martin Luther King, Jr. (MLK) Avenue overpass at Suitland Parkway would be widened to accommodate a new multi-use trail, a single-point center ramp interchange would create new access between Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue, the pedestrian over-pass over Suitland Parkway between Sheridan Road and Barry Farms would be reconstructed, and signed bicycle routes along New Jersey Avenue and throughout the project area would provide improved access to the Anacostia Riverwalk Trail, the riverfront, and historic Anacostia. Total construction costs are estimated at $806 million in fiscal year 2014 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would improve transportation safety, mobility, and access along the corridor. More complete connections between I-295 and Suitland Parkway, and Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue would enhance regional and local multi-modal mobility, allowing local streets to serve local traffic. Ongoing economic development activities related to new housing, employment, and recreation opportunities would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction impacts would include: travel pattern modifications for all modes of transportation; access changes; increased travel time; impacts to on-street parking; road closings; and temporary increases in noise levels, fugitive dust, and mobile source emissions. Right-of-way requirements would displace four commercial businesses. Nineteen hazardous waste sites would be encountered by construction workers and it is anticipated that some risk of subsurface contamination exists throughout the proposed construction area. Two historic resources, Suitland Parkway and the Plan of the City of Washington, would be adversely affected, but impacts would be mitigated. 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.), 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 08-0202D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110099, Final EIS--645 pages, Comments (Appendix 1)--475 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-DC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Urban Renewal KW - Anacostia River KW - District of Columbia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224277?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 12 of 40] T2 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 868224272; 14855-9_0012 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements to the South Capitol Street Corridor, including the replacement of the Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge over the Anacostia River, in the District of Columbia are proposed. The project would reconfigure South Capitol Street as an urban boulevard providing a grand, scenic gateway to the nation's capital. South Capitol Street was envisioned as one of the symbolic gateways to the city, but currently lacks any characteristics of its historic and intended function. As an urban freeway, it has become a conduit for through traffic at the expense of serving the needs of local residents and businesses. Transportation infrastructure is obsolete, in deteriorating condition, and fails to provide necessary connections to community destinations. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the preferred alternative, which is a refinement of Alternative 2 from the draft EIS, the project would: rebuild South Capitol Street as a six-lane boulevard west of the Anacostia River; reconstruct at-grade intersections along South Capitol Street at I, N, O, P, K, L and M streets; reconstruct the ramp from northbound South Capitol Street to Interstate 395 (I-395) as an at-grade intersection; construct a four-lane signalized traffic oval connecting South Capitol Street, Potomac Avenue and Q Street Southwest; and replace the existing Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge with an arched bascule bridge that includes bicycle and pedestrian access. A traffic circle would be constructed at the eastern approach to the new bridge to connect South Capitol Street, Suitland Parkway and Howard Road Southeast. Anacostia Drive would be extended to the north gate entrance of the U.S. Naval Support Facility Anacostia and an access road would be constructed from Anacostia Drive to Howard Road and the traffic circle. The existing Suitland Parkway/I-295 interchange would be replaced with a two-lane loop ramp for I-295 southbound at Suitland Parkway and a new traffic signal at the merge point with Suitland Parkway. Additionally, the I-295 bridge over South Capitol Street would be reconstructed, the I-295 bridge over Howard Road would be widened, the Martin Luther King, Jr. (MLK) Avenue overpass at Suitland Parkway would be widened to accommodate a new multi-use trail, a single-point center ramp interchange would create new access between Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue, the pedestrian over-pass over Suitland Parkway between Sheridan Road and Barry Farms would be reconstructed, and signed bicycle routes along New Jersey Avenue and throughout the project area would provide improved access to the Anacostia Riverwalk Trail, the riverfront, and historic Anacostia. Total construction costs are estimated at $806 million in fiscal year 2014 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would improve transportation safety, mobility, and access along the corridor. More complete connections between I-295 and Suitland Parkway, and Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue would enhance regional and local multi-modal mobility, allowing local streets to serve local traffic. Ongoing economic development activities related to new housing, employment, and recreation opportunities would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction impacts would include: travel pattern modifications for all modes of transportation; access changes; increased travel time; impacts to on-street parking; road closings; and temporary increases in noise levels, fugitive dust, and mobile source emissions. Right-of-way requirements would displace four commercial businesses. Nineteen hazardous waste sites would be encountered by construction workers and it is anticipated that some risk of subsurface contamination exists throughout the proposed construction area. Two historic resources, Suitland Parkway and the Plan of the City of Washington, would be adversely affected, but impacts would be mitigated. 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.), 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 08-0202D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110099, Final EIS--645 pages, Comments (Appendix 1)--475 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-DC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Urban Renewal KW - Anacostia River KW - District of Columbia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224272?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 11 of 40] T2 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 868224266; 14855-9_0011 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements to the South Capitol Street Corridor, including the replacement of the Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge over the Anacostia River, in the District of Columbia are proposed. The project would reconfigure South Capitol Street as an urban boulevard providing a grand, scenic gateway to the nation's capital. South Capitol Street was envisioned as one of the symbolic gateways to the city, but currently lacks any characteristics of its historic and intended function. As an urban freeway, it has become a conduit for through traffic at the expense of serving the needs of local residents and businesses. Transportation infrastructure is obsolete, in deteriorating condition, and fails to provide necessary connections to community destinations. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the preferred alternative, which is a refinement of Alternative 2 from the draft EIS, the project would: rebuild South Capitol Street as a six-lane boulevard west of the Anacostia River; reconstruct at-grade intersections along South Capitol Street at I, N, O, P, K, L and M streets; reconstruct the ramp from northbound South Capitol Street to Interstate 395 (I-395) as an at-grade intersection; construct a four-lane signalized traffic oval connecting South Capitol Street, Potomac Avenue and Q Street Southwest; and replace the existing Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge with an arched bascule bridge that includes bicycle and pedestrian access. A traffic circle would be constructed at the eastern approach to the new bridge to connect South Capitol Street, Suitland Parkway and Howard Road Southeast. Anacostia Drive would be extended to the north gate entrance of the U.S. Naval Support Facility Anacostia and an access road would be constructed from Anacostia Drive to Howard Road and the traffic circle. The existing Suitland Parkway/I-295 interchange would be replaced with a two-lane loop ramp for I-295 southbound at Suitland Parkway and a new traffic signal at the merge point with Suitland Parkway. Additionally, the I-295 bridge over South Capitol Street would be reconstructed, the I-295 bridge over Howard Road would be widened, the Martin Luther King, Jr. (MLK) Avenue overpass at Suitland Parkway would be widened to accommodate a new multi-use trail, a single-point center ramp interchange would create new access between Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue, the pedestrian over-pass over Suitland Parkway between Sheridan Road and Barry Farms would be reconstructed, and signed bicycle routes along New Jersey Avenue and throughout the project area would provide improved access to the Anacostia Riverwalk Trail, the riverfront, and historic Anacostia. Total construction costs are estimated at $806 million in fiscal year 2014 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would improve transportation safety, mobility, and access along the corridor. More complete connections between I-295 and Suitland Parkway, and Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue would enhance regional and local multi-modal mobility, allowing local streets to serve local traffic. Ongoing economic development activities related to new housing, employment, and recreation opportunities would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction impacts would include: travel pattern modifications for all modes of transportation; access changes; increased travel time; impacts to on-street parking; road closings; and temporary increases in noise levels, fugitive dust, and mobile source emissions. Right-of-way requirements would displace four commercial businesses. Nineteen hazardous waste sites would be encountered by construction workers and it is anticipated that some risk of subsurface contamination exists throughout the proposed construction area. Two historic resources, Suitland Parkway and the Plan of the City of Washington, would be adversely affected, but impacts would be mitigated. 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.), 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 08-0202D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110099, Final EIS--645 pages, Comments (Appendix 1)--475 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-DC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Urban Renewal KW - Anacostia River KW - District of Columbia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224266?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 27 of 40] T2 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 868224264; 14855-9_0027 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements to the South Capitol Street Corridor, including the replacement of the Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge over the Anacostia River, in the District of Columbia are proposed. The project would reconfigure South Capitol Street as an urban boulevard providing a grand, scenic gateway to the nation's capital. South Capitol Street was envisioned as one of the symbolic gateways to the city, but currently lacks any characteristics of its historic and intended function. As an urban freeway, it has become a conduit for through traffic at the expense of serving the needs of local residents and businesses. Transportation infrastructure is obsolete, in deteriorating condition, and fails to provide necessary connections to community destinations. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the preferred alternative, which is a refinement of Alternative 2 from the draft EIS, the project would: rebuild South Capitol Street as a six-lane boulevard west of the Anacostia River; reconstruct at-grade intersections along South Capitol Street at I, N, O, P, K, L and M streets; reconstruct the ramp from northbound South Capitol Street to Interstate 395 (I-395) as an at-grade intersection; construct a four-lane signalized traffic oval connecting South Capitol Street, Potomac Avenue and Q Street Southwest; and replace the existing Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge with an arched bascule bridge that includes bicycle and pedestrian access. A traffic circle would be constructed at the eastern approach to the new bridge to connect South Capitol Street, Suitland Parkway and Howard Road Southeast. Anacostia Drive would be extended to the north gate entrance of the U.S. Naval Support Facility Anacostia and an access road would be constructed from Anacostia Drive to Howard Road and the traffic circle. The existing Suitland Parkway/I-295 interchange would be replaced with a two-lane loop ramp for I-295 southbound at Suitland Parkway and a new traffic signal at the merge point with Suitland Parkway. Additionally, the I-295 bridge over South Capitol Street would be reconstructed, the I-295 bridge over Howard Road would be widened, the Martin Luther King, Jr. (MLK) Avenue overpass at Suitland Parkway would be widened to accommodate a new multi-use trail, a single-point center ramp interchange would create new access between Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue, the pedestrian over-pass over Suitland Parkway between Sheridan Road and Barry Farms would be reconstructed, and signed bicycle routes along New Jersey Avenue and throughout the project area would provide improved access to the Anacostia Riverwalk Trail, the riverfront, and historic Anacostia. Total construction costs are estimated at $806 million in fiscal year 2014 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would improve transportation safety, mobility, and access along the corridor. More complete connections between I-295 and Suitland Parkway, and Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue would enhance regional and local multi-modal mobility, allowing local streets to serve local traffic. Ongoing economic development activities related to new housing, employment, and recreation opportunities would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction impacts would include: travel pattern modifications for all modes of transportation; access changes; increased travel time; impacts to on-street parking; road closings; and temporary increases in noise levels, fugitive dust, and mobile source emissions. Right-of-way requirements would displace four commercial businesses. Nineteen hazardous waste sites would be encountered by construction workers and it is anticipated that some risk of subsurface contamination exists throughout the proposed construction area. Two historic resources, Suitland Parkway and the Plan of the City of Washington, would be adversely affected, but impacts would be mitigated. 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.), 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 08-0202D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110099, Final EIS--645 pages, Comments (Appendix 1)--475 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 27 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-DC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Urban Renewal KW - Anacostia River KW - District of Columbia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224264?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 26 of 40] T2 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 868224259; 14855-9_0026 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements to the South Capitol Street Corridor, including the replacement of the Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge over the Anacostia River, in the District of Columbia are proposed. The project would reconfigure South Capitol Street as an urban boulevard providing a grand, scenic gateway to the nation's capital. South Capitol Street was envisioned as one of the symbolic gateways to the city, but currently lacks any characteristics of its historic and intended function. As an urban freeway, it has become a conduit for through traffic at the expense of serving the needs of local residents and businesses. Transportation infrastructure is obsolete, in deteriorating condition, and fails to provide necessary connections to community destinations. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the preferred alternative, which is a refinement of Alternative 2 from the draft EIS, the project would: rebuild South Capitol Street as a six-lane boulevard west of the Anacostia River; reconstruct at-grade intersections along South Capitol Street at I, N, O, P, K, L and M streets; reconstruct the ramp from northbound South Capitol Street to Interstate 395 (I-395) as an at-grade intersection; construct a four-lane signalized traffic oval connecting South Capitol Street, Potomac Avenue and Q Street Southwest; and replace the existing Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge with an arched bascule bridge that includes bicycle and pedestrian access. A traffic circle would be constructed at the eastern approach to the new bridge to connect South Capitol Street, Suitland Parkway and Howard Road Southeast. Anacostia Drive would be extended to the north gate entrance of the U.S. Naval Support Facility Anacostia and an access road would be constructed from Anacostia Drive to Howard Road and the traffic circle. The existing Suitland Parkway/I-295 interchange would be replaced with a two-lane loop ramp for I-295 southbound at Suitland Parkway and a new traffic signal at the merge point with Suitland Parkway. Additionally, the I-295 bridge over South Capitol Street would be reconstructed, the I-295 bridge over Howard Road would be widened, the Martin Luther King, Jr. (MLK) Avenue overpass at Suitland Parkway would be widened to accommodate a new multi-use trail, a single-point center ramp interchange would create new access between Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue, the pedestrian over-pass over Suitland Parkway between Sheridan Road and Barry Farms would be reconstructed, and signed bicycle routes along New Jersey Avenue and throughout the project area would provide improved access to the Anacostia Riverwalk Trail, the riverfront, and historic Anacostia. Total construction costs are estimated at $806 million in fiscal year 2014 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would improve transportation safety, mobility, and access along the corridor. More complete connections between I-295 and Suitland Parkway, and Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue would enhance regional and local multi-modal mobility, allowing local streets to serve local traffic. Ongoing economic development activities related to new housing, employment, and recreation opportunities would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction impacts would include: travel pattern modifications for all modes of transportation; access changes; increased travel time; impacts to on-street parking; road closings; and temporary increases in noise levels, fugitive dust, and mobile source emissions. Right-of-way requirements would displace four commercial businesses. Nineteen hazardous waste sites would be encountered by construction workers and it is anticipated that some risk of subsurface contamination exists throughout the proposed construction area. Two historic resources, Suitland Parkway and the Plan of the City of Washington, would be adversely affected, but impacts would be mitigated. 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.), 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 08-0202D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110099, Final EIS--645 pages, Comments (Appendix 1)--475 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 26 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-DC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Urban Renewal KW - Anacostia River KW - District of Columbia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224259?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 10 of 40] T2 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 868224258; 14855-9_0010 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements to the South Capitol Street Corridor, including the replacement of the Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge over the Anacostia River, in the District of Columbia are proposed. The project would reconfigure South Capitol Street as an urban boulevard providing a grand, scenic gateway to the nation's capital. South Capitol Street was envisioned as one of the symbolic gateways to the city, but currently lacks any characteristics of its historic and intended function. As an urban freeway, it has become a conduit for through traffic at the expense of serving the needs of local residents and businesses. Transportation infrastructure is obsolete, in deteriorating condition, and fails to provide necessary connections to community destinations. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the preferred alternative, which is a refinement of Alternative 2 from the draft EIS, the project would: rebuild South Capitol Street as a six-lane boulevard west of the Anacostia River; reconstruct at-grade intersections along South Capitol Street at I, N, O, P, K, L and M streets; reconstruct the ramp from northbound South Capitol Street to Interstate 395 (I-395) as an at-grade intersection; construct a four-lane signalized traffic oval connecting South Capitol Street, Potomac Avenue and Q Street Southwest; and replace the existing Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge with an arched bascule bridge that includes bicycle and pedestrian access. A traffic circle would be constructed at the eastern approach to the new bridge to connect South Capitol Street, Suitland Parkway and Howard Road Southeast. Anacostia Drive would be extended to the north gate entrance of the U.S. Naval Support Facility Anacostia and an access road would be constructed from Anacostia Drive to Howard Road and the traffic circle. The existing Suitland Parkway/I-295 interchange would be replaced with a two-lane loop ramp for I-295 southbound at Suitland Parkway and a new traffic signal at the merge point with Suitland Parkway. Additionally, the I-295 bridge over South Capitol Street would be reconstructed, the I-295 bridge over Howard Road would be widened, the Martin Luther King, Jr. (MLK) Avenue overpass at Suitland Parkway would be widened to accommodate a new multi-use trail, a single-point center ramp interchange would create new access between Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue, the pedestrian over-pass over Suitland Parkway between Sheridan Road and Barry Farms would be reconstructed, and signed bicycle routes along New Jersey Avenue and throughout the project area would provide improved access to the Anacostia Riverwalk Trail, the riverfront, and historic Anacostia. Total construction costs are estimated at $806 million in fiscal year 2014 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would improve transportation safety, mobility, and access along the corridor. More complete connections between I-295 and Suitland Parkway, and Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue would enhance regional and local multi-modal mobility, allowing local streets to serve local traffic. Ongoing economic development activities related to new housing, employment, and recreation opportunities would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction impacts would include: travel pattern modifications for all modes of transportation; access changes; increased travel time; impacts to on-street parking; road closings; and temporary increases in noise levels, fugitive dust, and mobile source emissions. Right-of-way requirements would displace four commercial businesses. Nineteen hazardous waste sites would be encountered by construction workers and it is anticipated that some risk of subsurface contamination exists throughout the proposed construction area. Two historic resources, Suitland Parkway and the Plan of the City of Washington, would be adversely affected, but impacts would be mitigated. 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.), 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 08-0202D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110099, Final EIS--645 pages, Comments (Appendix 1)--475 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-DC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Urban Renewal KW - Anacostia River KW - District of Columbia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224258?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 25 of 40] T2 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 868224255; 14855-9_0025 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements to the South Capitol Street Corridor, including the replacement of the Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge over the Anacostia River, in the District of Columbia are proposed. The project would reconfigure South Capitol Street as an urban boulevard providing a grand, scenic gateway to the nation's capital. South Capitol Street was envisioned as one of the symbolic gateways to the city, but currently lacks any characteristics of its historic and intended function. As an urban freeway, it has become a conduit for through traffic at the expense of serving the needs of local residents and businesses. Transportation infrastructure is obsolete, in deteriorating condition, and fails to provide necessary connections to community destinations. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the preferred alternative, which is a refinement of Alternative 2 from the draft EIS, the project would: rebuild South Capitol Street as a six-lane boulevard west of the Anacostia River; reconstruct at-grade intersections along South Capitol Street at I, N, O, P, K, L and M streets; reconstruct the ramp from northbound South Capitol Street to Interstate 395 (I-395) as an at-grade intersection; construct a four-lane signalized traffic oval connecting South Capitol Street, Potomac Avenue and Q Street Southwest; and replace the existing Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge with an arched bascule bridge that includes bicycle and pedestrian access. A traffic circle would be constructed at the eastern approach to the new bridge to connect South Capitol Street, Suitland Parkway and Howard Road Southeast. Anacostia Drive would be extended to the north gate entrance of the U.S. Naval Support Facility Anacostia and an access road would be constructed from Anacostia Drive to Howard Road and the traffic circle. The existing Suitland Parkway/I-295 interchange would be replaced with a two-lane loop ramp for I-295 southbound at Suitland Parkway and a new traffic signal at the merge point with Suitland Parkway. Additionally, the I-295 bridge over South Capitol Street would be reconstructed, the I-295 bridge over Howard Road would be widened, the Martin Luther King, Jr. (MLK) Avenue overpass at Suitland Parkway would be widened to accommodate a new multi-use trail, a single-point center ramp interchange would create new access between Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue, the pedestrian over-pass over Suitland Parkway between Sheridan Road and Barry Farms would be reconstructed, and signed bicycle routes along New Jersey Avenue and throughout the project area would provide improved access to the Anacostia Riverwalk Trail, the riverfront, and historic Anacostia. Total construction costs are estimated at $806 million in fiscal year 2014 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would improve transportation safety, mobility, and access along the corridor. More complete connections between I-295 and Suitland Parkway, and Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue would enhance regional and local multi-modal mobility, allowing local streets to serve local traffic. Ongoing economic development activities related to new housing, employment, and recreation opportunities would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction impacts would include: travel pattern modifications for all modes of transportation; access changes; increased travel time; impacts to on-street parking; road closings; and temporary increases in noise levels, fugitive dust, and mobile source emissions. Right-of-way requirements would displace four commercial businesses. Nineteen hazardous waste sites would be encountered by construction workers and it is anticipated that some risk of subsurface contamination exists throughout the proposed construction area. Two historic resources, Suitland Parkway and the Plan of the City of Washington, would be adversely affected, but impacts would be mitigated. 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.), 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 08-0202D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110099, Final EIS--645 pages, Comments (Appendix 1)--475 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 25 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-DC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Urban Renewal KW - Anacostia River KW - District of Columbia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224255?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 9 of 40] T2 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 868224250; 14855-9_0009 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements to the South Capitol Street Corridor, including the replacement of the Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge over the Anacostia River, in the District of Columbia are proposed. The project would reconfigure South Capitol Street as an urban boulevard providing a grand, scenic gateway to the nation's capital. South Capitol Street was envisioned as one of the symbolic gateways to the city, but currently lacks any characteristics of its historic and intended function. As an urban freeway, it has become a conduit for through traffic at the expense of serving the needs of local residents and businesses. Transportation infrastructure is obsolete, in deteriorating condition, and fails to provide necessary connections to community destinations. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the preferred alternative, which is a refinement of Alternative 2 from the draft EIS, the project would: rebuild South Capitol Street as a six-lane boulevard west of the Anacostia River; reconstruct at-grade intersections along South Capitol Street at I, N, O, P, K, L and M streets; reconstruct the ramp from northbound South Capitol Street to Interstate 395 (I-395) as an at-grade intersection; construct a four-lane signalized traffic oval connecting South Capitol Street, Potomac Avenue and Q Street Southwest; and replace the existing Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge with an arched bascule bridge that includes bicycle and pedestrian access. A traffic circle would be constructed at the eastern approach to the new bridge to connect South Capitol Street, Suitland Parkway and Howard Road Southeast. Anacostia Drive would be extended to the north gate entrance of the U.S. Naval Support Facility Anacostia and an access road would be constructed from Anacostia Drive to Howard Road and the traffic circle. The existing Suitland Parkway/I-295 interchange would be replaced with a two-lane loop ramp for I-295 southbound at Suitland Parkway and a new traffic signal at the merge point with Suitland Parkway. Additionally, the I-295 bridge over South Capitol Street would be reconstructed, the I-295 bridge over Howard Road would be widened, the Martin Luther King, Jr. (MLK) Avenue overpass at Suitland Parkway would be widened to accommodate a new multi-use trail, a single-point center ramp interchange would create new access between Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue, the pedestrian over-pass over Suitland Parkway between Sheridan Road and Barry Farms would be reconstructed, and signed bicycle routes along New Jersey Avenue and throughout the project area would provide improved access to the Anacostia Riverwalk Trail, the riverfront, and historic Anacostia. Total construction costs are estimated at $806 million in fiscal year 2014 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would improve transportation safety, mobility, and access along the corridor. More complete connections between I-295 and Suitland Parkway, and Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue would enhance regional and local multi-modal mobility, allowing local streets to serve local traffic. Ongoing economic development activities related to new housing, employment, and recreation opportunities would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction impacts would include: travel pattern modifications for all modes of transportation; access changes; increased travel time; impacts to on-street parking; road closings; and temporary increases in noise levels, fugitive dust, and mobile source emissions. Right-of-way requirements would displace four commercial businesses. Nineteen hazardous waste sites would be encountered by construction workers and it is anticipated that some risk of subsurface contamination exists throughout the proposed construction area. Two historic resources, Suitland Parkway and the Plan of the City of Washington, would be adversely affected, but impacts would be mitigated. 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.), 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 08-0202D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110099, Final EIS--645 pages, Comments (Appendix 1)--475 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-DC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Urban Renewal KW - Anacostia River KW - District of Columbia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224250?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 24 of 40] T2 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 868224248; 14855-9_0024 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements to the South Capitol Street Corridor, including the replacement of the Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge over the Anacostia River, in the District of Columbia are proposed. The project would reconfigure South Capitol Street as an urban boulevard providing a grand, scenic gateway to the nation's capital. South Capitol Street was envisioned as one of the symbolic gateways to the city, but currently lacks any characteristics of its historic and intended function. As an urban freeway, it has become a conduit for through traffic at the expense of serving the needs of local residents and businesses. Transportation infrastructure is obsolete, in deteriorating condition, and fails to provide necessary connections to community destinations. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the preferred alternative, which is a refinement of Alternative 2 from the draft EIS, the project would: rebuild South Capitol Street as a six-lane boulevard west of the Anacostia River; reconstruct at-grade intersections along South Capitol Street at I, N, O, P, K, L and M streets; reconstruct the ramp from northbound South Capitol Street to Interstate 395 (I-395) as an at-grade intersection; construct a four-lane signalized traffic oval connecting South Capitol Street, Potomac Avenue and Q Street Southwest; and replace the existing Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge with an arched bascule bridge that includes bicycle and pedestrian access. A traffic circle would be constructed at the eastern approach to the new bridge to connect South Capitol Street, Suitland Parkway and Howard Road Southeast. Anacostia Drive would be extended to the north gate entrance of the U.S. Naval Support Facility Anacostia and an access road would be constructed from Anacostia Drive to Howard Road and the traffic circle. The existing Suitland Parkway/I-295 interchange would be replaced with a two-lane loop ramp for I-295 southbound at Suitland Parkway and a new traffic signal at the merge point with Suitland Parkway. Additionally, the I-295 bridge over South Capitol Street would be reconstructed, the I-295 bridge over Howard Road would be widened, the Martin Luther King, Jr. (MLK) Avenue overpass at Suitland Parkway would be widened to accommodate a new multi-use trail, a single-point center ramp interchange would create new access between Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue, the pedestrian over-pass over Suitland Parkway between Sheridan Road and Barry Farms would be reconstructed, and signed bicycle routes along New Jersey Avenue and throughout the project area would provide improved access to the Anacostia Riverwalk Trail, the riverfront, and historic Anacostia. Total construction costs are estimated at $806 million in fiscal year 2014 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would improve transportation safety, mobility, and access along the corridor. More complete connections between I-295 and Suitland Parkway, and Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue would enhance regional and local multi-modal mobility, allowing local streets to serve local traffic. Ongoing economic development activities related to new housing, employment, and recreation opportunities would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction impacts would include: travel pattern modifications for all modes of transportation; access changes; increased travel time; impacts to on-street parking; road closings; and temporary increases in noise levels, fugitive dust, and mobile source emissions. Right-of-way requirements would displace four commercial businesses. Nineteen hazardous waste sites would be encountered by construction workers and it is anticipated that some risk of subsurface contamination exists throughout the proposed construction area. Two historic resources, Suitland Parkway and the Plan of the City of Washington, would be adversely affected, but impacts would be mitigated. 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.), 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 08-0202D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110099, Final EIS--645 pages, Comments (Appendix 1)--475 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 24 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-DC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Urban Renewal KW - Anacostia River KW - District of Columbia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224248?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 23 of 40] T2 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 868224242; 14855-9_0023 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements to the South Capitol Street Corridor, including the replacement of the Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge over the Anacostia River, in the District of Columbia are proposed. The project would reconfigure South Capitol Street as an urban boulevard providing a grand, scenic gateway to the nation's capital. South Capitol Street was envisioned as one of the symbolic gateways to the city, but currently lacks any characteristics of its historic and intended function. As an urban freeway, it has become a conduit for through traffic at the expense of serving the needs of local residents and businesses. Transportation infrastructure is obsolete, in deteriorating condition, and fails to provide necessary connections to community destinations. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the preferred alternative, which is a refinement of Alternative 2 from the draft EIS, the project would: rebuild South Capitol Street as a six-lane boulevard west of the Anacostia River; reconstruct at-grade intersections along South Capitol Street at I, N, O, P, K, L and M streets; reconstruct the ramp from northbound South Capitol Street to Interstate 395 (I-395) as an at-grade intersection; construct a four-lane signalized traffic oval connecting South Capitol Street, Potomac Avenue and Q Street Southwest; and replace the existing Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge with an arched bascule bridge that includes bicycle and pedestrian access. A traffic circle would be constructed at the eastern approach to the new bridge to connect South Capitol Street, Suitland Parkway and Howard Road Southeast. Anacostia Drive would be extended to the north gate entrance of the U.S. Naval Support Facility Anacostia and an access road would be constructed from Anacostia Drive to Howard Road and the traffic circle. The existing Suitland Parkway/I-295 interchange would be replaced with a two-lane loop ramp for I-295 southbound at Suitland Parkway and a new traffic signal at the merge point with Suitland Parkway. Additionally, the I-295 bridge over South Capitol Street would be reconstructed, the I-295 bridge over Howard Road would be widened, the Martin Luther King, Jr. (MLK) Avenue overpass at Suitland Parkway would be widened to accommodate a new multi-use trail, a single-point center ramp interchange would create new access between Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue, the pedestrian over-pass over Suitland Parkway between Sheridan Road and Barry Farms would be reconstructed, and signed bicycle routes along New Jersey Avenue and throughout the project area would provide improved access to the Anacostia Riverwalk Trail, the riverfront, and historic Anacostia. Total construction costs are estimated at $806 million in fiscal year 2014 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would improve transportation safety, mobility, and access along the corridor. More complete connections between I-295 and Suitland Parkway, and Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue would enhance regional and local multi-modal mobility, allowing local streets to serve local traffic. Ongoing economic development activities related to new housing, employment, and recreation opportunities would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction impacts would include: travel pattern modifications for all modes of transportation; access changes; increased travel time; impacts to on-street parking; road closings; and temporary increases in noise levels, fugitive dust, and mobile source emissions. Right-of-way requirements would displace four commercial businesses. Nineteen hazardous waste sites would be encountered by construction workers and it is anticipated that some risk of subsurface contamination exists throughout the proposed construction area. Two historic resources, Suitland Parkway and the Plan of the City of Washington, would be adversely affected, but impacts would be mitigated. 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.), 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 08-0202D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110099, Final EIS--645 pages, Comments (Appendix 1)--475 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 23 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-DC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Urban Renewal KW - Anacostia River KW - District of Columbia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224242?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 22 of 40] T2 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 868224234; 14855-9_0022 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements to the South Capitol Street Corridor, including the replacement of the Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge over the Anacostia River, in the District of Columbia are proposed. The project would reconfigure South Capitol Street as an urban boulevard providing a grand, scenic gateway to the nation's capital. South Capitol Street was envisioned as one of the symbolic gateways to the city, but currently lacks any characteristics of its historic and intended function. As an urban freeway, it has become a conduit for through traffic at the expense of serving the needs of local residents and businesses. Transportation infrastructure is obsolete, in deteriorating condition, and fails to provide necessary connections to community destinations. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the preferred alternative, which is a refinement of Alternative 2 from the draft EIS, the project would: rebuild South Capitol Street as a six-lane boulevard west of the Anacostia River; reconstruct at-grade intersections along South Capitol Street at I, N, O, P, K, L and M streets; reconstruct the ramp from northbound South Capitol Street to Interstate 395 (I-395) as an at-grade intersection; construct a four-lane signalized traffic oval connecting South Capitol Street, Potomac Avenue and Q Street Southwest; and replace the existing Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge with an arched bascule bridge that includes bicycle and pedestrian access. A traffic circle would be constructed at the eastern approach to the new bridge to connect South Capitol Street, Suitland Parkway and Howard Road Southeast. Anacostia Drive would be extended to the north gate entrance of the U.S. Naval Support Facility Anacostia and an access road would be constructed from Anacostia Drive to Howard Road and the traffic circle. The existing Suitland Parkway/I-295 interchange would be replaced with a two-lane loop ramp for I-295 southbound at Suitland Parkway and a new traffic signal at the merge point with Suitland Parkway. Additionally, the I-295 bridge over South Capitol Street would be reconstructed, the I-295 bridge over Howard Road would be widened, the Martin Luther King, Jr. (MLK) Avenue overpass at Suitland Parkway would be widened to accommodate a new multi-use trail, a single-point center ramp interchange would create new access between Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue, the pedestrian over-pass over Suitland Parkway between Sheridan Road and Barry Farms would be reconstructed, and signed bicycle routes along New Jersey Avenue and throughout the project area would provide improved access to the Anacostia Riverwalk Trail, the riverfront, and historic Anacostia. Total construction costs are estimated at $806 million in fiscal year 2014 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would improve transportation safety, mobility, and access along the corridor. More complete connections between I-295 and Suitland Parkway, and Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue would enhance regional and local multi-modal mobility, allowing local streets to serve local traffic. Ongoing economic development activities related to new housing, employment, and recreation opportunities would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction impacts would include: travel pattern modifications for all modes of transportation; access changes; increased travel time; impacts to on-street parking; road closings; and temporary increases in noise levels, fugitive dust, and mobile source emissions. Right-of-way requirements would displace four commercial businesses. Nineteen hazardous waste sites would be encountered by construction workers and it is anticipated that some risk of subsurface contamination exists throughout the proposed construction area. Two historic resources, Suitland Parkway and the Plan of the City of Washington, would be adversely affected, but impacts would be mitigated. 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.), 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 08-0202D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110099, Final EIS--645 pages, Comments (Appendix 1)--475 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 22 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-DC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Urban Renewal KW - Anacostia River KW - District of Columbia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224234?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 21 of 40] T2 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 868224227; 14855-9_0021 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements to the South Capitol Street Corridor, including the replacement of the Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge over the Anacostia River, in the District of Columbia are proposed. The project would reconfigure South Capitol Street as an urban boulevard providing a grand, scenic gateway to the nation's capital. South Capitol Street was envisioned as one of the symbolic gateways to the city, but currently lacks any characteristics of its historic and intended function. As an urban freeway, it has become a conduit for through traffic at the expense of serving the needs of local residents and businesses. Transportation infrastructure is obsolete, in deteriorating condition, and fails to provide necessary connections to community destinations. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the preferred alternative, which is a refinement of Alternative 2 from the draft EIS, the project would: rebuild South Capitol Street as a six-lane boulevard west of the Anacostia River; reconstruct at-grade intersections along South Capitol Street at I, N, O, P, K, L and M streets; reconstruct the ramp from northbound South Capitol Street to Interstate 395 (I-395) as an at-grade intersection; construct a four-lane signalized traffic oval connecting South Capitol Street, Potomac Avenue and Q Street Southwest; and replace the existing Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge with an arched bascule bridge that includes bicycle and pedestrian access. A traffic circle would be constructed at the eastern approach to the new bridge to connect South Capitol Street, Suitland Parkway and Howard Road Southeast. Anacostia Drive would be extended to the north gate entrance of the U.S. Naval Support Facility Anacostia and an access road would be constructed from Anacostia Drive to Howard Road and the traffic circle. The existing Suitland Parkway/I-295 interchange would be replaced with a two-lane loop ramp for I-295 southbound at Suitland Parkway and a new traffic signal at the merge point with Suitland Parkway. Additionally, the I-295 bridge over South Capitol Street would be reconstructed, the I-295 bridge over Howard Road would be widened, the Martin Luther King, Jr. (MLK) Avenue overpass at Suitland Parkway would be widened to accommodate a new multi-use trail, a single-point center ramp interchange would create new access between Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue, the pedestrian over-pass over Suitland Parkway between Sheridan Road and Barry Farms would be reconstructed, and signed bicycle routes along New Jersey Avenue and throughout the project area would provide improved access to the Anacostia Riverwalk Trail, the riverfront, and historic Anacostia. Total construction costs are estimated at $806 million in fiscal year 2014 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would improve transportation safety, mobility, and access along the corridor. More complete connections between I-295 and Suitland Parkway, and Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue would enhance regional and local multi-modal mobility, allowing local streets to serve local traffic. Ongoing economic development activities related to new housing, employment, and recreation opportunities would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction impacts would include: travel pattern modifications for all modes of transportation; access changes; increased travel time; impacts to on-street parking; road closings; and temporary increases in noise levels, fugitive dust, and mobile source emissions. Right-of-way requirements would displace four commercial businesses. Nineteen hazardous waste sites would be encountered by construction workers and it is anticipated that some risk of subsurface contamination exists throughout the proposed construction area. Two historic resources, Suitland Parkway and the Plan of the City of Washington, would be adversely affected, but impacts would be mitigated. 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.), 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 08-0202D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110099, Final EIS--645 pages, Comments (Appendix 1)--475 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 21 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-DC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Urban Renewal KW - Anacostia River KW - District of Columbia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224227?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 32 of 40] T2 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 868224223; 14855-9_0032 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements to the South Capitol Street Corridor, including the replacement of the Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge over the Anacostia River, in the District of Columbia are proposed. The project would reconfigure South Capitol Street as an urban boulevard providing a grand, scenic gateway to the nation's capital. South Capitol Street was envisioned as one of the symbolic gateways to the city, but currently lacks any characteristics of its historic and intended function. As an urban freeway, it has become a conduit for through traffic at the expense of serving the needs of local residents and businesses. Transportation infrastructure is obsolete, in deteriorating condition, and fails to provide necessary connections to community destinations. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the preferred alternative, which is a refinement of Alternative 2 from the draft EIS, the project would: rebuild South Capitol Street as a six-lane boulevard west of the Anacostia River; reconstruct at-grade intersections along South Capitol Street at I, N, O, P, K, L and M streets; reconstruct the ramp from northbound South Capitol Street to Interstate 395 (I-395) as an at-grade intersection; construct a four-lane signalized traffic oval connecting South Capitol Street, Potomac Avenue and Q Street Southwest; and replace the existing Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge with an arched bascule bridge that includes bicycle and pedestrian access. A traffic circle would be constructed at the eastern approach to the new bridge to connect South Capitol Street, Suitland Parkway and Howard Road Southeast. Anacostia Drive would be extended to the north gate entrance of the U.S. Naval Support Facility Anacostia and an access road would be constructed from Anacostia Drive to Howard Road and the traffic circle. The existing Suitland Parkway/I-295 interchange would be replaced with a two-lane loop ramp for I-295 southbound at Suitland Parkway and a new traffic signal at the merge point with Suitland Parkway. Additionally, the I-295 bridge over South Capitol Street would be reconstructed, the I-295 bridge over Howard Road would be widened, the Martin Luther King, Jr. (MLK) Avenue overpass at Suitland Parkway would be widened to accommodate a new multi-use trail, a single-point center ramp interchange would create new access between Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue, the pedestrian over-pass over Suitland Parkway between Sheridan Road and Barry Farms would be reconstructed, and signed bicycle routes along New Jersey Avenue and throughout the project area would provide improved access to the Anacostia Riverwalk Trail, the riverfront, and historic Anacostia. Total construction costs are estimated at $806 million in fiscal year 2014 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would improve transportation safety, mobility, and access along the corridor. More complete connections between I-295 and Suitland Parkway, and Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue would enhance regional and local multi-modal mobility, allowing local streets to serve local traffic. Ongoing economic development activities related to new housing, employment, and recreation opportunities would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction impacts would include: travel pattern modifications for all modes of transportation; access changes; increased travel time; impacts to on-street parking; road closings; and temporary increases in noise levels, fugitive dust, and mobile source emissions. Right-of-way requirements would displace four commercial businesses. Nineteen hazardous waste sites would be encountered by construction workers and it is anticipated that some risk of subsurface contamination exists throughout the proposed construction area. Two historic resources, Suitland Parkway and the Plan of the City of Washington, would be adversely affected, but impacts would be mitigated. 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.), 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 08-0202D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110099, Final EIS--645 pages, Comments (Appendix 1)--475 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 32 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-DC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Urban Renewal KW - Anacostia River KW - District of Columbia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224223?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 20 of 40] T2 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 868224219; 14855-9_0020 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements to the South Capitol Street Corridor, including the replacement of the Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge over the Anacostia River, in the District of Columbia are proposed. The project would reconfigure South Capitol Street as an urban boulevard providing a grand, scenic gateway to the nation's capital. South Capitol Street was envisioned as one of the symbolic gateways to the city, but currently lacks any characteristics of its historic and intended function. As an urban freeway, it has become a conduit for through traffic at the expense of serving the needs of local residents and businesses. Transportation infrastructure is obsolete, in deteriorating condition, and fails to provide necessary connections to community destinations. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the preferred alternative, which is a refinement of Alternative 2 from the draft EIS, the project would: rebuild South Capitol Street as a six-lane boulevard west of the Anacostia River; reconstruct at-grade intersections along South Capitol Street at I, N, O, P, K, L and M streets; reconstruct the ramp from northbound South Capitol Street to Interstate 395 (I-395) as an at-grade intersection; construct a four-lane signalized traffic oval connecting South Capitol Street, Potomac Avenue and Q Street Southwest; and replace the existing Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge with an arched bascule bridge that includes bicycle and pedestrian access. A traffic circle would be constructed at the eastern approach to the new bridge to connect South Capitol Street, Suitland Parkway and Howard Road Southeast. Anacostia Drive would be extended to the north gate entrance of the U.S. Naval Support Facility Anacostia and an access road would be constructed from Anacostia Drive to Howard Road and the traffic circle. The existing Suitland Parkway/I-295 interchange would be replaced with a two-lane loop ramp for I-295 southbound at Suitland Parkway and a new traffic signal at the merge point with Suitland Parkway. Additionally, the I-295 bridge over South Capitol Street would be reconstructed, the I-295 bridge over Howard Road would be widened, the Martin Luther King, Jr. (MLK) Avenue overpass at Suitland Parkway would be widened to accommodate a new multi-use trail, a single-point center ramp interchange would create new access between Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue, the pedestrian over-pass over Suitland Parkway between Sheridan Road and Barry Farms would be reconstructed, and signed bicycle routes along New Jersey Avenue and throughout the project area would provide improved access to the Anacostia Riverwalk Trail, the riverfront, and historic Anacostia. Total construction costs are estimated at $806 million in fiscal year 2014 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would improve transportation safety, mobility, and access along the corridor. More complete connections between I-295 and Suitland Parkway, and Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue would enhance regional and local multi-modal mobility, allowing local streets to serve local traffic. Ongoing economic development activities related to new housing, employment, and recreation opportunities would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction impacts would include: travel pattern modifications for all modes of transportation; access changes; increased travel time; impacts to on-street parking; road closings; and temporary increases in noise levels, fugitive dust, and mobile source emissions. Right-of-way requirements would displace four commercial businesses. Nineteen hazardous waste sites would be encountered by construction workers and it is anticipated that some risk of subsurface contamination exists throughout the proposed construction area. Two historic resources, Suitland Parkway and the Plan of the City of Washington, would be adversely affected, but impacts would be mitigated. 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.), 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 08-0202D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110099, Final EIS--645 pages, Comments (Appendix 1)--475 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 20 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-DC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Urban Renewal KW - Anacostia River KW - District of Columbia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224219?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 31 of 40] T2 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 868224213; 14855-9_0031 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements to the South Capitol Street Corridor, including the replacement of the Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge over the Anacostia River, in the District of Columbia are proposed. The project would reconfigure South Capitol Street as an urban boulevard providing a grand, scenic gateway to the nation's capital. South Capitol Street was envisioned as one of the symbolic gateways to the city, but currently lacks any characteristics of its historic and intended function. As an urban freeway, it has become a conduit for through traffic at the expense of serving the needs of local residents and businesses. Transportation infrastructure is obsolete, in deteriorating condition, and fails to provide necessary connections to community destinations. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the preferred alternative, which is a refinement of Alternative 2 from the draft EIS, the project would: rebuild South Capitol Street as a six-lane boulevard west of the Anacostia River; reconstruct at-grade intersections along South Capitol Street at I, N, O, P, K, L and M streets; reconstruct the ramp from northbound South Capitol Street to Interstate 395 (I-395) as an at-grade intersection; construct a four-lane signalized traffic oval connecting South Capitol Street, Potomac Avenue and Q Street Southwest; and replace the existing Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge with an arched bascule bridge that includes bicycle and pedestrian access. A traffic circle would be constructed at the eastern approach to the new bridge to connect South Capitol Street, Suitland Parkway and Howard Road Southeast. Anacostia Drive would be extended to the north gate entrance of the U.S. Naval Support Facility Anacostia and an access road would be constructed from Anacostia Drive to Howard Road and the traffic circle. The existing Suitland Parkway/I-295 interchange would be replaced with a two-lane loop ramp for I-295 southbound at Suitland Parkway and a new traffic signal at the merge point with Suitland Parkway. Additionally, the I-295 bridge over South Capitol Street would be reconstructed, the I-295 bridge over Howard Road would be widened, the Martin Luther King, Jr. (MLK) Avenue overpass at Suitland Parkway would be widened to accommodate a new multi-use trail, a single-point center ramp interchange would create new access between Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue, the pedestrian over-pass over Suitland Parkway between Sheridan Road and Barry Farms would be reconstructed, and signed bicycle routes along New Jersey Avenue and throughout the project area would provide improved access to the Anacostia Riverwalk Trail, the riverfront, and historic Anacostia. Total construction costs are estimated at $806 million in fiscal year 2014 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would improve transportation safety, mobility, and access along the corridor. More complete connections between I-295 and Suitland Parkway, and Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue would enhance regional and local multi-modal mobility, allowing local streets to serve local traffic. Ongoing economic development activities related to new housing, employment, and recreation opportunities would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction impacts would include: travel pattern modifications for all modes of transportation; access changes; increased travel time; impacts to on-street parking; road closings; and temporary increases in noise levels, fugitive dust, and mobile source emissions. Right-of-way requirements would displace four commercial businesses. Nineteen hazardous waste sites would be encountered by construction workers and it is anticipated that some risk of subsurface contamination exists throughout the proposed construction area. Two historic resources, Suitland Parkway and the Plan of the City of Washington, would be adversely affected, but impacts would be mitigated. 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.), 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 08-0202D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110099, Final EIS--645 pages, Comments (Appendix 1)--475 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 31 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-DC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Urban Renewal KW - Anacostia River KW - District of Columbia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224213?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 19 of 40] T2 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 868224209; 14855-9_0019 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements to the South Capitol Street Corridor, including the replacement of the Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge over the Anacostia River, in the District of Columbia are proposed. The project would reconfigure South Capitol Street as an urban boulevard providing a grand, scenic gateway to the nation's capital. South Capitol Street was envisioned as one of the symbolic gateways to the city, but currently lacks any characteristics of its historic and intended function. As an urban freeway, it has become a conduit for through traffic at the expense of serving the needs of local residents and businesses. Transportation infrastructure is obsolete, in deteriorating condition, and fails to provide necessary connections to community destinations. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the preferred alternative, which is a refinement of Alternative 2 from the draft EIS, the project would: rebuild South Capitol Street as a six-lane boulevard west of the Anacostia River; reconstruct at-grade intersections along South Capitol Street at I, N, O, P, K, L and M streets; reconstruct the ramp from northbound South Capitol Street to Interstate 395 (I-395) as an at-grade intersection; construct a four-lane signalized traffic oval connecting South Capitol Street, Potomac Avenue and Q Street Southwest; and replace the existing Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge with an arched bascule bridge that includes bicycle and pedestrian access. A traffic circle would be constructed at the eastern approach to the new bridge to connect South Capitol Street, Suitland Parkway and Howard Road Southeast. Anacostia Drive would be extended to the north gate entrance of the U.S. Naval Support Facility Anacostia and an access road would be constructed from Anacostia Drive to Howard Road and the traffic circle. The existing Suitland Parkway/I-295 interchange would be replaced with a two-lane loop ramp for I-295 southbound at Suitland Parkway and a new traffic signal at the merge point with Suitland Parkway. Additionally, the I-295 bridge over South Capitol Street would be reconstructed, the I-295 bridge over Howard Road would be widened, the Martin Luther King, Jr. (MLK) Avenue overpass at Suitland Parkway would be widened to accommodate a new multi-use trail, a single-point center ramp interchange would create new access between Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue, the pedestrian over-pass over Suitland Parkway between Sheridan Road and Barry Farms would be reconstructed, and signed bicycle routes along New Jersey Avenue and throughout the project area would provide improved access to the Anacostia Riverwalk Trail, the riverfront, and historic Anacostia. Total construction costs are estimated at $806 million in fiscal year 2014 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would improve transportation safety, mobility, and access along the corridor. More complete connections between I-295 and Suitland Parkway, and Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue would enhance regional and local multi-modal mobility, allowing local streets to serve local traffic. Ongoing economic development activities related to new housing, employment, and recreation opportunities would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction impacts would include: travel pattern modifications for all modes of transportation; access changes; increased travel time; impacts to on-street parking; road closings; and temporary increases in noise levels, fugitive dust, and mobile source emissions. Right-of-way requirements would displace four commercial businesses. Nineteen hazardous waste sites would be encountered by construction workers and it is anticipated that some risk of subsurface contamination exists throughout the proposed construction area. Two historic resources, Suitland Parkway and the Plan of the City of Washington, would be adversely affected, but impacts would be mitigated. 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.), 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 08-0202D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110099, Final EIS--645 pages, Comments (Appendix 1)--475 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 19 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-DC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Urban Renewal KW - Anacostia River KW - District of Columbia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224209?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 8 of 40] T2 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 868224195; 14855-9_0008 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements to the South Capitol Street Corridor, including the replacement of the Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge over the Anacostia River, in the District of Columbia are proposed. The project would reconfigure South Capitol Street as an urban boulevard providing a grand, scenic gateway to the nation's capital. South Capitol Street was envisioned as one of the symbolic gateways to the city, but currently lacks any characteristics of its historic and intended function. As an urban freeway, it has become a conduit for through traffic at the expense of serving the needs of local residents and businesses. Transportation infrastructure is obsolete, in deteriorating condition, and fails to provide necessary connections to community destinations. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the preferred alternative, which is a refinement of Alternative 2 from the draft EIS, the project would: rebuild South Capitol Street as a six-lane boulevard west of the Anacostia River; reconstruct at-grade intersections along South Capitol Street at I, N, O, P, K, L and M streets; reconstruct the ramp from northbound South Capitol Street to Interstate 395 (I-395) as an at-grade intersection; construct a four-lane signalized traffic oval connecting South Capitol Street, Potomac Avenue and Q Street Southwest; and replace the existing Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge with an arched bascule bridge that includes bicycle and pedestrian access. A traffic circle would be constructed at the eastern approach to the new bridge to connect South Capitol Street, Suitland Parkway and Howard Road Southeast. Anacostia Drive would be extended to the north gate entrance of the U.S. Naval Support Facility Anacostia and an access road would be constructed from Anacostia Drive to Howard Road and the traffic circle. The existing Suitland Parkway/I-295 interchange would be replaced with a two-lane loop ramp for I-295 southbound at Suitland Parkway and a new traffic signal at the merge point with Suitland Parkway. Additionally, the I-295 bridge over South Capitol Street would be reconstructed, the I-295 bridge over Howard Road would be widened, the Martin Luther King, Jr. (MLK) Avenue overpass at Suitland Parkway would be widened to accommodate a new multi-use trail, a single-point center ramp interchange would create new access between Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue, the pedestrian over-pass over Suitland Parkway between Sheridan Road and Barry Farms would be reconstructed, and signed bicycle routes along New Jersey Avenue and throughout the project area would provide improved access to the Anacostia Riverwalk Trail, the riverfront, and historic Anacostia. Total construction costs are estimated at $806 million in fiscal year 2014 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would improve transportation safety, mobility, and access along the corridor. More complete connections between I-295 and Suitland Parkway, and Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue would enhance regional and local multi-modal mobility, allowing local streets to serve local traffic. Ongoing economic development activities related to new housing, employment, and recreation opportunities would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction impacts would include: travel pattern modifications for all modes of transportation; access changes; increased travel time; impacts to on-street parking; road closings; and temporary increases in noise levels, fugitive dust, and mobile source emissions. Right-of-way requirements would displace four commercial businesses. Nineteen hazardous waste sites would be encountered by construction workers and it is anticipated that some risk of subsurface contamination exists throughout the proposed construction area. Two historic resources, Suitland Parkway and the Plan of the City of Washington, would be adversely affected, but impacts would be mitigated. 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.), 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 08-0202D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110099, Final EIS--645 pages, Comments (Appendix 1)--475 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-DC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Urban Renewal KW - Anacostia River KW - District of Columbia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224195?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 7 of 40] T2 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 868224189; 14855-9_0007 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements to the South Capitol Street Corridor, including the replacement of the Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge over the Anacostia River, in the District of Columbia are proposed. The project would reconfigure South Capitol Street as an urban boulevard providing a grand, scenic gateway to the nation's capital. South Capitol Street was envisioned as one of the symbolic gateways to the city, but currently lacks any characteristics of its historic and intended function. As an urban freeway, it has become a conduit for through traffic at the expense of serving the needs of local residents and businesses. Transportation infrastructure is obsolete, in deteriorating condition, and fails to provide necessary connections to community destinations. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the preferred alternative, which is a refinement of Alternative 2 from the draft EIS, the project would: rebuild South Capitol Street as a six-lane boulevard west of the Anacostia River; reconstruct at-grade intersections along South Capitol Street at I, N, O, P, K, L and M streets; reconstruct the ramp from northbound South Capitol Street to Interstate 395 (I-395) as an at-grade intersection; construct a four-lane signalized traffic oval connecting South Capitol Street, Potomac Avenue and Q Street Southwest; and replace the existing Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge with an arched bascule bridge that includes bicycle and pedestrian access. A traffic circle would be constructed at the eastern approach to the new bridge to connect South Capitol Street, Suitland Parkway and Howard Road Southeast. Anacostia Drive would be extended to the north gate entrance of the U.S. Naval Support Facility Anacostia and an access road would be constructed from Anacostia Drive to Howard Road and the traffic circle. The existing Suitland Parkway/I-295 interchange would be replaced with a two-lane loop ramp for I-295 southbound at Suitland Parkway and a new traffic signal at the merge point with Suitland Parkway. Additionally, the I-295 bridge over South Capitol Street would be reconstructed, the I-295 bridge over Howard Road would be widened, the Martin Luther King, Jr. (MLK) Avenue overpass at Suitland Parkway would be widened to accommodate a new multi-use trail, a single-point center ramp interchange would create new access between Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue, the pedestrian over-pass over Suitland Parkway between Sheridan Road and Barry Farms would be reconstructed, and signed bicycle routes along New Jersey Avenue and throughout the project area would provide improved access to the Anacostia Riverwalk Trail, the riverfront, and historic Anacostia. Total construction costs are estimated at $806 million in fiscal year 2014 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would improve transportation safety, mobility, and access along the corridor. More complete connections between I-295 and Suitland Parkway, and Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue would enhance regional and local multi-modal mobility, allowing local streets to serve local traffic. Ongoing economic development activities related to new housing, employment, and recreation opportunities would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction impacts would include: travel pattern modifications for all modes of transportation; access changes; increased travel time; impacts to on-street parking; road closings; and temporary increases in noise levels, fugitive dust, and mobile source emissions. Right-of-way requirements would displace four commercial businesses. Nineteen hazardous waste sites would be encountered by construction workers and it is anticipated that some risk of subsurface contamination exists throughout the proposed construction area. Two historic resources, Suitland Parkway and the Plan of the City of Washington, would be adversely affected, but impacts would be mitigated. 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.), 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 08-0202D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110099, Final EIS--645 pages, Comments (Appendix 1)--475 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-DC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Urban Renewal KW - Anacostia River KW - District of Columbia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224189?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 30 of 40] T2 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 868224091; 14855-9_0030 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements to the South Capitol Street Corridor, including the replacement of the Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge over the Anacostia River, in the District of Columbia are proposed. The project would reconfigure South Capitol Street as an urban boulevard providing a grand, scenic gateway to the nation's capital. South Capitol Street was envisioned as one of the symbolic gateways to the city, but currently lacks any characteristics of its historic and intended function. As an urban freeway, it has become a conduit for through traffic at the expense of serving the needs of local residents and businesses. Transportation infrastructure is obsolete, in deteriorating condition, and fails to provide necessary connections to community destinations. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the preferred alternative, which is a refinement of Alternative 2 from the draft EIS, the project would: rebuild South Capitol Street as a six-lane boulevard west of the Anacostia River; reconstruct at-grade intersections along South Capitol Street at I, N, O, P, K, L and M streets; reconstruct the ramp from northbound South Capitol Street to Interstate 395 (I-395) as an at-grade intersection; construct a four-lane signalized traffic oval connecting South Capitol Street, Potomac Avenue and Q Street Southwest; and replace the existing Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge with an arched bascule bridge that includes bicycle and pedestrian access. A traffic circle would be constructed at the eastern approach to the new bridge to connect South Capitol Street, Suitland Parkway and Howard Road Southeast. Anacostia Drive would be extended to the north gate entrance of the U.S. Naval Support Facility Anacostia and an access road would be constructed from Anacostia Drive to Howard Road and the traffic circle. The existing Suitland Parkway/I-295 interchange would be replaced with a two-lane loop ramp for I-295 southbound at Suitland Parkway and a new traffic signal at the merge point with Suitland Parkway. Additionally, the I-295 bridge over South Capitol Street would be reconstructed, the I-295 bridge over Howard Road would be widened, the Martin Luther King, Jr. (MLK) Avenue overpass at Suitland Parkway would be widened to accommodate a new multi-use trail, a single-point center ramp interchange would create new access between Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue, the pedestrian over-pass over Suitland Parkway between Sheridan Road and Barry Farms would be reconstructed, and signed bicycle routes along New Jersey Avenue and throughout the project area would provide improved access to the Anacostia Riverwalk Trail, the riverfront, and historic Anacostia. Total construction costs are estimated at $806 million in fiscal year 2014 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would improve transportation safety, mobility, and access along the corridor. More complete connections between I-295 and Suitland Parkway, and Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue would enhance regional and local multi-modal mobility, allowing local streets to serve local traffic. Ongoing economic development activities related to new housing, employment, and recreation opportunities would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction impacts would include: travel pattern modifications for all modes of transportation; access changes; increased travel time; impacts to on-street parking; road closings; and temporary increases in noise levels, fugitive dust, and mobile source emissions. Right-of-way requirements would displace four commercial businesses. Nineteen hazardous waste sites would be encountered by construction workers and it is anticipated that some risk of subsurface contamination exists throughout the proposed construction area. Two historic resources, Suitland Parkway and the Plan of the City of Washington, would be adversely affected, but impacts would be mitigated. 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.), 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 08-0202D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110099, Final EIS--645 pages, Comments (Appendix 1)--475 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 30 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-DC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Urban Renewal KW - Anacostia River KW - District of Columbia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224091?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 29 of 40] T2 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 868224083; 14855-9_0029 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements to the South Capitol Street Corridor, including the replacement of the Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge over the Anacostia River, in the District of Columbia are proposed. The project would reconfigure South Capitol Street as an urban boulevard providing a grand, scenic gateway to the nation's capital. South Capitol Street was envisioned as one of the symbolic gateways to the city, but currently lacks any characteristics of its historic and intended function. As an urban freeway, it has become a conduit for through traffic at the expense of serving the needs of local residents and businesses. Transportation infrastructure is obsolete, in deteriorating condition, and fails to provide necessary connections to community destinations. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the preferred alternative, which is a refinement of Alternative 2 from the draft EIS, the project would: rebuild South Capitol Street as a six-lane boulevard west of the Anacostia River; reconstruct at-grade intersections along South Capitol Street at I, N, O, P, K, L and M streets; reconstruct the ramp from northbound South Capitol Street to Interstate 395 (I-395) as an at-grade intersection; construct a four-lane signalized traffic oval connecting South Capitol Street, Potomac Avenue and Q Street Southwest; and replace the existing Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge with an arched bascule bridge that includes bicycle and pedestrian access. A traffic circle would be constructed at the eastern approach to the new bridge to connect South Capitol Street, Suitland Parkway and Howard Road Southeast. Anacostia Drive would be extended to the north gate entrance of the U.S. Naval Support Facility Anacostia and an access road would be constructed from Anacostia Drive to Howard Road and the traffic circle. The existing Suitland Parkway/I-295 interchange would be replaced with a two-lane loop ramp for I-295 southbound at Suitland Parkway and a new traffic signal at the merge point with Suitland Parkway. Additionally, the I-295 bridge over South Capitol Street would be reconstructed, the I-295 bridge over Howard Road would be widened, the Martin Luther King, Jr. (MLK) Avenue overpass at Suitland Parkway would be widened to accommodate a new multi-use trail, a single-point center ramp interchange would create new access between Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue, the pedestrian over-pass over Suitland Parkway between Sheridan Road and Barry Farms would be reconstructed, and signed bicycle routes along New Jersey Avenue and throughout the project area would provide improved access to the Anacostia Riverwalk Trail, the riverfront, and historic Anacostia. Total construction costs are estimated at $806 million in fiscal year 2014 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would improve transportation safety, mobility, and access along the corridor. More complete connections between I-295 and Suitland Parkway, and Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue would enhance regional and local multi-modal mobility, allowing local streets to serve local traffic. Ongoing economic development activities related to new housing, employment, and recreation opportunities would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction impacts would include: travel pattern modifications for all modes of transportation; access changes; increased travel time; impacts to on-street parking; road closings; and temporary increases in noise levels, fugitive dust, and mobile source emissions. Right-of-way requirements would displace four commercial businesses. Nineteen hazardous waste sites would be encountered by construction workers and it is anticipated that some risk of subsurface contamination exists throughout the proposed construction area. Two historic resources, Suitland Parkway and the Plan of the City of Washington, would be adversely affected, but impacts would be mitigated. 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.), 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 08-0202D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110099, Final EIS--645 pages, Comments (Appendix 1)--475 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 29 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-DC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Urban Renewal KW - Anacostia River KW - District of Columbia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224083?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 28 of 40] T2 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 868224076; 14855-9_0028 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements to the South Capitol Street Corridor, including the replacement of the Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge over the Anacostia River, in the District of Columbia are proposed. The project would reconfigure South Capitol Street as an urban boulevard providing a grand, scenic gateway to the nation's capital. South Capitol Street was envisioned as one of the symbolic gateways to the city, but currently lacks any characteristics of its historic and intended function. As an urban freeway, it has become a conduit for through traffic at the expense of serving the needs of local residents and businesses. Transportation infrastructure is obsolete, in deteriorating condition, and fails to provide necessary connections to community destinations. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the preferred alternative, which is a refinement of Alternative 2 from the draft EIS, the project would: rebuild South Capitol Street as a six-lane boulevard west of the Anacostia River; reconstruct at-grade intersections along South Capitol Street at I, N, O, P, K, L and M streets; reconstruct the ramp from northbound South Capitol Street to Interstate 395 (I-395) as an at-grade intersection; construct a four-lane signalized traffic oval connecting South Capitol Street, Potomac Avenue and Q Street Southwest; and replace the existing Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge with an arched bascule bridge that includes bicycle and pedestrian access. A traffic circle would be constructed at the eastern approach to the new bridge to connect South Capitol Street, Suitland Parkway and Howard Road Southeast. Anacostia Drive would be extended to the north gate entrance of the U.S. Naval Support Facility Anacostia and an access road would be constructed from Anacostia Drive to Howard Road and the traffic circle. The existing Suitland Parkway/I-295 interchange would be replaced with a two-lane loop ramp for I-295 southbound at Suitland Parkway and a new traffic signal at the merge point with Suitland Parkway. Additionally, the I-295 bridge over South Capitol Street would be reconstructed, the I-295 bridge over Howard Road would be widened, the Martin Luther King, Jr. (MLK) Avenue overpass at Suitland Parkway would be widened to accommodate a new multi-use trail, a single-point center ramp interchange would create new access between Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue, the pedestrian over-pass over Suitland Parkway between Sheridan Road and Barry Farms would be reconstructed, and signed bicycle routes along New Jersey Avenue and throughout the project area would provide improved access to the Anacostia Riverwalk Trail, the riverfront, and historic Anacostia. Total construction costs are estimated at $806 million in fiscal year 2014 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would improve transportation safety, mobility, and access along the corridor. More complete connections between I-295 and Suitland Parkway, and Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue would enhance regional and local multi-modal mobility, allowing local streets to serve local traffic. Ongoing economic development activities related to new housing, employment, and recreation opportunities would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction impacts would include: travel pattern modifications for all modes of transportation; access changes; increased travel time; impacts to on-street parking; road closings; and temporary increases in noise levels, fugitive dust, and mobile source emissions. Right-of-way requirements would displace four commercial businesses. Nineteen hazardous waste sites would be encountered by construction workers and it is anticipated that some risk of subsurface contamination exists throughout the proposed construction area. Two historic resources, Suitland Parkway and the Plan of the City of Washington, would be adversely affected, but impacts would be mitigated. 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.), 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 08-0202D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110099, Final EIS--645 pages, Comments (Appendix 1)--475 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 28 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-DC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Urban Renewal KW - Anacostia River KW - District of Columbia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224076?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 39 of 40] T2 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 868223837; 14855-9_0039 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements to the South Capitol Street Corridor, including the replacement of the Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge over the Anacostia River, in the District of Columbia are proposed. The project would reconfigure South Capitol Street as an urban boulevard providing a grand, scenic gateway to the nation's capital. South Capitol Street was envisioned as one of the symbolic gateways to the city, but currently lacks any characteristics of its historic and intended function. As an urban freeway, it has become a conduit for through traffic at the expense of serving the needs of local residents and businesses. Transportation infrastructure is obsolete, in deteriorating condition, and fails to provide necessary connections to community destinations. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the preferred alternative, which is a refinement of Alternative 2 from the draft EIS, the project would: rebuild South Capitol Street as a six-lane boulevard west of the Anacostia River; reconstruct at-grade intersections along South Capitol Street at I, N, O, P, K, L and M streets; reconstruct the ramp from northbound South Capitol Street to Interstate 395 (I-395) as an at-grade intersection; construct a four-lane signalized traffic oval connecting South Capitol Street, Potomac Avenue and Q Street Southwest; and replace the existing Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge with an arched bascule bridge that includes bicycle and pedestrian access. A traffic circle would be constructed at the eastern approach to the new bridge to connect South Capitol Street, Suitland Parkway and Howard Road Southeast. Anacostia Drive would be extended to the north gate entrance of the U.S. Naval Support Facility Anacostia and an access road would be constructed from Anacostia Drive to Howard Road and the traffic circle. The existing Suitland Parkway/I-295 interchange would be replaced with a two-lane loop ramp for I-295 southbound at Suitland Parkway and a new traffic signal at the merge point with Suitland Parkway. Additionally, the I-295 bridge over South Capitol Street would be reconstructed, the I-295 bridge over Howard Road would be widened, the Martin Luther King, Jr. (MLK) Avenue overpass at Suitland Parkway would be widened to accommodate a new multi-use trail, a single-point center ramp interchange would create new access between Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue, the pedestrian over-pass over Suitland Parkway between Sheridan Road and Barry Farms would be reconstructed, and signed bicycle routes along New Jersey Avenue and throughout the project area would provide improved access to the Anacostia Riverwalk Trail, the riverfront, and historic Anacostia. Total construction costs are estimated at $806 million in fiscal year 2014 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would improve transportation safety, mobility, and access along the corridor. More complete connections between I-295 and Suitland Parkway, and Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue would enhance regional and local multi-modal mobility, allowing local streets to serve local traffic. Ongoing economic development activities related to new housing, employment, and recreation opportunities would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction impacts would include: travel pattern modifications for all modes of transportation; access changes; increased travel time; impacts to on-street parking; road closings; and temporary increases in noise levels, fugitive dust, and mobile source emissions. Right-of-way requirements would displace four commercial businesses. Nineteen hazardous waste sites would be encountered by construction workers and it is anticipated that some risk of subsurface contamination exists throughout the proposed construction area. Two historic resources, Suitland Parkway and the Plan of the City of Washington, would be adversely affected, but impacts would be mitigated. 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.), 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 08-0202D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110099, Final EIS--645 pages, Comments (Appendix 1)--475 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 39 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-DC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Urban Renewal KW - Anacostia River KW - District of Columbia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223837?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 38 of 40] T2 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 868223832; 14855-9_0038 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements to the South Capitol Street Corridor, including the replacement of the Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge over the Anacostia River, in the District of Columbia are proposed. The project would reconfigure South Capitol Street as an urban boulevard providing a grand, scenic gateway to the nation's capital. South Capitol Street was envisioned as one of the symbolic gateways to the city, but currently lacks any characteristics of its historic and intended function. As an urban freeway, it has become a conduit for through traffic at the expense of serving the needs of local residents and businesses. Transportation infrastructure is obsolete, in deteriorating condition, and fails to provide necessary connections to community destinations. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the preferred alternative, which is a refinement of Alternative 2 from the draft EIS, the project would: rebuild South Capitol Street as a six-lane boulevard west of the Anacostia River; reconstruct at-grade intersections along South Capitol Street at I, N, O, P, K, L and M streets; reconstruct the ramp from northbound South Capitol Street to Interstate 395 (I-395) as an at-grade intersection; construct a four-lane signalized traffic oval connecting South Capitol Street, Potomac Avenue and Q Street Southwest; and replace the existing Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge with an arched bascule bridge that includes bicycle and pedestrian access. A traffic circle would be constructed at the eastern approach to the new bridge to connect South Capitol Street, Suitland Parkway and Howard Road Southeast. Anacostia Drive would be extended to the north gate entrance of the U.S. Naval Support Facility Anacostia and an access road would be constructed from Anacostia Drive to Howard Road and the traffic circle. The existing Suitland Parkway/I-295 interchange would be replaced with a two-lane loop ramp for I-295 southbound at Suitland Parkway and a new traffic signal at the merge point with Suitland Parkway. Additionally, the I-295 bridge over South Capitol Street would be reconstructed, the I-295 bridge over Howard Road would be widened, the Martin Luther King, Jr. (MLK) Avenue overpass at Suitland Parkway would be widened to accommodate a new multi-use trail, a single-point center ramp interchange would create new access between Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue, the pedestrian over-pass over Suitland Parkway between Sheridan Road and Barry Farms would be reconstructed, and signed bicycle routes along New Jersey Avenue and throughout the project area would provide improved access to the Anacostia Riverwalk Trail, the riverfront, and historic Anacostia. Total construction costs are estimated at $806 million in fiscal year 2014 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would improve transportation safety, mobility, and access along the corridor. More complete connections between I-295 and Suitland Parkway, and Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue would enhance regional and local multi-modal mobility, allowing local streets to serve local traffic. Ongoing economic development activities related to new housing, employment, and recreation opportunities would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction impacts would include: travel pattern modifications for all modes of transportation; access changes; increased travel time; impacts to on-street parking; road closings; and temporary increases in noise levels, fugitive dust, and mobile source emissions. Right-of-way requirements would displace four commercial businesses. Nineteen hazardous waste sites would be encountered by construction workers and it is anticipated that some risk of subsurface contamination exists throughout the proposed construction area. Two historic resources, Suitland Parkway and the Plan of the City of Washington, would be adversely affected, but impacts would be mitigated. 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.), 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 08-0202D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110099, Final EIS--645 pages, Comments (Appendix 1)--475 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 38 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-DC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Urban Renewal KW - Anacostia River KW - District of Columbia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223832?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 37 of 40] T2 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 868223823; 14855-9_0037 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements to the South Capitol Street Corridor, including the replacement of the Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge over the Anacostia River, in the District of Columbia are proposed. The project would reconfigure South Capitol Street as an urban boulevard providing a grand, scenic gateway to the nation's capital. South Capitol Street was envisioned as one of the symbolic gateways to the city, but currently lacks any characteristics of its historic and intended function. As an urban freeway, it has become a conduit for through traffic at the expense of serving the needs of local residents and businesses. Transportation infrastructure is obsolete, in deteriorating condition, and fails to provide necessary connections to community destinations. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the preferred alternative, which is a refinement of Alternative 2 from the draft EIS, the project would: rebuild South Capitol Street as a six-lane boulevard west of the Anacostia River; reconstruct at-grade intersections along South Capitol Street at I, N, O, P, K, L and M streets; reconstruct the ramp from northbound South Capitol Street to Interstate 395 (I-395) as an at-grade intersection; construct a four-lane signalized traffic oval connecting South Capitol Street, Potomac Avenue and Q Street Southwest; and replace the existing Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge with an arched bascule bridge that includes bicycle and pedestrian access. A traffic circle would be constructed at the eastern approach to the new bridge to connect South Capitol Street, Suitland Parkway and Howard Road Southeast. Anacostia Drive would be extended to the north gate entrance of the U.S. Naval Support Facility Anacostia and an access road would be constructed from Anacostia Drive to Howard Road and the traffic circle. The existing Suitland Parkway/I-295 interchange would be replaced with a two-lane loop ramp for I-295 southbound at Suitland Parkway and a new traffic signal at the merge point with Suitland Parkway. Additionally, the I-295 bridge over South Capitol Street would be reconstructed, the I-295 bridge over Howard Road would be widened, the Martin Luther King, Jr. (MLK) Avenue overpass at Suitland Parkway would be widened to accommodate a new multi-use trail, a single-point center ramp interchange would create new access between Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue, the pedestrian over-pass over Suitland Parkway between Sheridan Road and Barry Farms would be reconstructed, and signed bicycle routes along New Jersey Avenue and throughout the project area would provide improved access to the Anacostia Riverwalk Trail, the riverfront, and historic Anacostia. Total construction costs are estimated at $806 million in fiscal year 2014 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would improve transportation safety, mobility, and access along the corridor. More complete connections between I-295 and Suitland Parkway, and Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue would enhance regional and local multi-modal mobility, allowing local streets to serve local traffic. Ongoing economic development activities related to new housing, employment, and recreation opportunities would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction impacts would include: travel pattern modifications for all modes of transportation; access changes; increased travel time; impacts to on-street parking; road closings; and temporary increases in noise levels, fugitive dust, and mobile source emissions. Right-of-way requirements would displace four commercial businesses. Nineteen hazardous waste sites would be encountered by construction workers and it is anticipated that some risk of subsurface contamination exists throughout the proposed construction area. Two historic resources, Suitland Parkway and the Plan of the City of Washington, would be adversely affected, but impacts would be mitigated. 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.), 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 08-0202D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110099, Final EIS--645 pages, Comments (Appendix 1)--475 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 37 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-DC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Urban Renewal KW - Anacostia River KW - District of Columbia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223823?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 36 of 40] T2 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 868223817; 14855-9_0036 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements to the South Capitol Street Corridor, including the replacement of the Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge over the Anacostia River, in the District of Columbia are proposed. The project would reconfigure South Capitol Street as an urban boulevard providing a grand, scenic gateway to the nation's capital. South Capitol Street was envisioned as one of the symbolic gateways to the city, but currently lacks any characteristics of its historic and intended function. As an urban freeway, it has become a conduit for through traffic at the expense of serving the needs of local residents and businesses. Transportation infrastructure is obsolete, in deteriorating condition, and fails to provide necessary connections to community destinations. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the preferred alternative, which is a refinement of Alternative 2 from the draft EIS, the project would: rebuild South Capitol Street as a six-lane boulevard west of the Anacostia River; reconstruct at-grade intersections along South Capitol Street at I, N, O, P, K, L and M streets; reconstruct the ramp from northbound South Capitol Street to Interstate 395 (I-395) as an at-grade intersection; construct a four-lane signalized traffic oval connecting South Capitol Street, Potomac Avenue and Q Street Southwest; and replace the existing Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge with an arched bascule bridge that includes bicycle and pedestrian access. A traffic circle would be constructed at the eastern approach to the new bridge to connect South Capitol Street, Suitland Parkway and Howard Road Southeast. Anacostia Drive would be extended to the north gate entrance of the U.S. Naval Support Facility Anacostia and an access road would be constructed from Anacostia Drive to Howard Road and the traffic circle. The existing Suitland Parkway/I-295 interchange would be replaced with a two-lane loop ramp for I-295 southbound at Suitland Parkway and a new traffic signal at the merge point with Suitland Parkway. Additionally, the I-295 bridge over South Capitol Street would be reconstructed, the I-295 bridge over Howard Road would be widened, the Martin Luther King, Jr. (MLK) Avenue overpass at Suitland Parkway would be widened to accommodate a new multi-use trail, a single-point center ramp interchange would create new access between Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue, the pedestrian over-pass over Suitland Parkway between Sheridan Road and Barry Farms would be reconstructed, and signed bicycle routes along New Jersey Avenue and throughout the project area would provide improved access to the Anacostia Riverwalk Trail, the riverfront, and historic Anacostia. Total construction costs are estimated at $806 million in fiscal year 2014 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would improve transportation safety, mobility, and access along the corridor. More complete connections between I-295 and Suitland Parkway, and Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue would enhance regional and local multi-modal mobility, allowing local streets to serve local traffic. Ongoing economic development activities related to new housing, employment, and recreation opportunities would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction impacts would include: travel pattern modifications for all modes of transportation; access changes; increased travel time; impacts to on-street parking; road closings; and temporary increases in noise levels, fugitive dust, and mobile source emissions. Right-of-way requirements would displace four commercial businesses. Nineteen hazardous waste sites would be encountered by construction workers and it is anticipated that some risk of subsurface contamination exists throughout the proposed construction area. Two historic resources, Suitland Parkway and the Plan of the City of Washington, would be adversely affected, but impacts would be mitigated. 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.), 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 08-0202D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110099, Final EIS--645 pages, Comments (Appendix 1)--475 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 36 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-DC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Urban Renewal KW - Anacostia River KW - District of Columbia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223817?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 35 of 40] T2 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 868223809; 14855-9_0035 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements to the South Capitol Street Corridor, including the replacement of the Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge over the Anacostia River, in the District of Columbia are proposed. The project would reconfigure South Capitol Street as an urban boulevard providing a grand, scenic gateway to the nation's capital. South Capitol Street was envisioned as one of the symbolic gateways to the city, but currently lacks any characteristics of its historic and intended function. As an urban freeway, it has become a conduit for through traffic at the expense of serving the needs of local residents and businesses. Transportation infrastructure is obsolete, in deteriorating condition, and fails to provide necessary connections to community destinations. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the preferred alternative, which is a refinement of Alternative 2 from the draft EIS, the project would: rebuild South Capitol Street as a six-lane boulevard west of the Anacostia River; reconstruct at-grade intersections along South Capitol Street at I, N, O, P, K, L and M streets; reconstruct the ramp from northbound South Capitol Street to Interstate 395 (I-395) as an at-grade intersection; construct a four-lane signalized traffic oval connecting South Capitol Street, Potomac Avenue and Q Street Southwest; and replace the existing Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge with an arched bascule bridge that includes bicycle and pedestrian access. A traffic circle would be constructed at the eastern approach to the new bridge to connect South Capitol Street, Suitland Parkway and Howard Road Southeast. Anacostia Drive would be extended to the north gate entrance of the U.S. Naval Support Facility Anacostia and an access road would be constructed from Anacostia Drive to Howard Road and the traffic circle. The existing Suitland Parkway/I-295 interchange would be replaced with a two-lane loop ramp for I-295 southbound at Suitland Parkway and a new traffic signal at the merge point with Suitland Parkway. Additionally, the I-295 bridge over South Capitol Street would be reconstructed, the I-295 bridge over Howard Road would be widened, the Martin Luther King, Jr. (MLK) Avenue overpass at Suitland Parkway would be widened to accommodate a new multi-use trail, a single-point center ramp interchange would create new access between Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue, the pedestrian over-pass over Suitland Parkway between Sheridan Road and Barry Farms would be reconstructed, and signed bicycle routes along New Jersey Avenue and throughout the project area would provide improved access to the Anacostia Riverwalk Trail, the riverfront, and historic Anacostia. Total construction costs are estimated at $806 million in fiscal year 2014 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would improve transportation safety, mobility, and access along the corridor. More complete connections between I-295 and Suitland Parkway, and Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue would enhance regional and local multi-modal mobility, allowing local streets to serve local traffic. Ongoing economic development activities related to new housing, employment, and recreation opportunities would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction impacts would include: travel pattern modifications for all modes of transportation; access changes; increased travel time; impacts to on-street parking; road closings; and temporary increases in noise levels, fugitive dust, and mobile source emissions. Right-of-way requirements would displace four commercial businesses. Nineteen hazardous waste sites would be encountered by construction workers and it is anticipated that some risk of subsurface contamination exists throughout the proposed construction area. Two historic resources, Suitland Parkway and the Plan of the City of Washington, would be adversely affected, but impacts would be mitigated. 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.), 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 08-0202D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110099, Final EIS--645 pages, Comments (Appendix 1)--475 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 35 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-DC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Urban Renewal KW - Anacostia River KW - District of Columbia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223809?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ILLINOIS 336 (FEDERAL AID PRIMARY ROUTE 315) PROPOSED MACOMB BYPASS TO I-474, MCDONOUGH, FULTON, AND PEORIA COUNTIES, ILLINOIS. [Part 8 of 16] T2 - ILLINOIS 336 (FEDERAL AID PRIMARY ROUTE 315) PROPOSED MACOMB BYPASS TO I-474, MCDONOUGH, FULTON, AND PEORIA COUNTIES, ILLINOIS. AN - 868223622; 14863-7_0008 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements within the Illinois (IL) 336 corridor from the proposed Macomb Bypass in McDonough County to Interstate 474 (I-474) west of Peoria, Illinois are proposed. The 60-mile-long project corridor includes parts of McDonough, Fulton, and Peoria counties and principal communities in and near the study area are Macomb, Canton, and Peoria. A No Build Alternative, which would incorporate all planned roadway improvements, and a Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Under the Build Alternative, the project would begin at the proposed Macomb Bypass and would be built as an expressway, except at the east end of the project where six miles would be constructed as freeway to accommodate the higher existing and projected future traffic volumes. Within the freeway section, access would only be allowed at grade-separated interchanges. Within the expressway section, at-grade intersections would be permitted at crossroads, and access would be permitted from residential and agricultural properties. From the bypass, the preferred alignment would extend east for 7.5 miles along 1400th Road to minimize farm severances. Just before the McDonough/Fulton County line, it would turn northeast and pass just south of Marietta. East of Marietta it would follow the existing IL 95 alignment across the Spoon River, and continue east on the IL 95 alignment for another four miles before heading northeast and bypassing Cuba just to the north. East of Cuba, the expressway would follow the County Highway 5 alignment for several miles, to just southwest of Canton, then pass Canton just west of the Illinois River Correctional Center and the Canton Airport, with an interchange at IL 9. Continuing north, the expressway would pass just east of the Illinois Department of Natural Resources Double T Conservation Area, then head northeast to join the IL 78 alignment in the vicinity of Norris before passing southeast of Farmington, continuing east and generally paralleling IL16, and finally moving north to connect with the Bellevue Stub, which would provide a connection to I-474 just west of Peoria. No timetable for real estate acquisition or construction has been established. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A four-lane divided highway between US 67 at Macomb and I-474 would complete the system linkage and route continuity of IL 336 from Quincy to Peoria and would provide more reliable and efficient transportation service across the project area, including improved access from the Peoria airport to destinations such as the meeting and conference facilities at Western Illinois University. Increased travel efficiency would reduce transportation costs and could prevent further economic decline in the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would require new right-of-way of 2,651 acres and would affect 2,015 acres of farmland, 157 acres of forest, and 4.1 acres of wetland. The highway would traverse 12 streams and 14 acres of floodplain. Displacements would include 26 residences and 4 commercial establishments. 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 09-0306D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110107, Final EIS--351 pages and maps, Appendices--480 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Illinois KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223622?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ILLINOIS+336+%28FEDERAL+AID+PRIMARY+ROUTE+315%29+PROPOSED+MACOMB+BYPASS+TO+I-474%2C+MCDONOUGH%2C+FULTON%2C+AND+PEORIA+COUNTIES%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.title=ILLINOIS+336+%28FEDERAL+AID+PRIMARY+ROUTE+315%29+PROPOSED+MACOMB+BYPASS+TO+I-474%2C+MCDONOUGH%2C+FULTON%2C+AND+PEORIA+COUNTIES%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Springfield, Illinois; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ILLINOIS 336 (FEDERAL AID PRIMARY ROUTE 315) PROPOSED MACOMB BYPASS TO I-474, MCDONOUGH, FULTON, AND PEORIA COUNTIES, ILLINOIS. [Part 7 of 16] T2 - ILLINOIS 336 (FEDERAL AID PRIMARY ROUTE 315) PROPOSED MACOMB BYPASS TO I-474, MCDONOUGH, FULTON, AND PEORIA COUNTIES, ILLINOIS. AN - 868223615; 14863-7_0007 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements within the Illinois (IL) 336 corridor from the proposed Macomb Bypass in McDonough County to Interstate 474 (I-474) west of Peoria, Illinois are proposed. The 60-mile-long project corridor includes parts of McDonough, Fulton, and Peoria counties and principal communities in and near the study area are Macomb, Canton, and Peoria. A No Build Alternative, which would incorporate all planned roadway improvements, and a Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Under the Build Alternative, the project would begin at the proposed Macomb Bypass and would be built as an expressway, except at the east end of the project where six miles would be constructed as freeway to accommodate the higher existing and projected future traffic volumes. Within the freeway section, access would only be allowed at grade-separated interchanges. Within the expressway section, at-grade intersections would be permitted at crossroads, and access would be permitted from residential and agricultural properties. From the bypass, the preferred alignment would extend east for 7.5 miles along 1400th Road to minimize farm severances. Just before the McDonough/Fulton County line, it would turn northeast and pass just south of Marietta. East of Marietta it would follow the existing IL 95 alignment across the Spoon River, and continue east on the IL 95 alignment for another four miles before heading northeast and bypassing Cuba just to the north. East of Cuba, the expressway would follow the County Highway 5 alignment for several miles, to just southwest of Canton, then pass Canton just west of the Illinois River Correctional Center and the Canton Airport, with an interchange at IL 9. Continuing north, the expressway would pass just east of the Illinois Department of Natural Resources Double T Conservation Area, then head northeast to join the IL 78 alignment in the vicinity of Norris before passing southeast of Farmington, continuing east and generally paralleling IL16, and finally moving north to connect with the Bellevue Stub, which would provide a connection to I-474 just west of Peoria. No timetable for real estate acquisition or construction has been established. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A four-lane divided highway between US 67 at Macomb and I-474 would complete the system linkage and route continuity of IL 336 from Quincy to Peoria and would provide more reliable and efficient transportation service across the project area, including improved access from the Peoria airport to destinations such as the meeting and conference facilities at Western Illinois University. Increased travel efficiency would reduce transportation costs and could prevent further economic decline in the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would require new right-of-way of 2,651 acres and would affect 2,015 acres of farmland, 157 acres of forest, and 4.1 acres of wetland. The highway would traverse 12 streams and 14 acres of floodplain. Displacements would include 26 residences and 4 commercial establishments. 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 09-0306D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110107, Final EIS--351 pages and maps, Appendices--480 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Illinois KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223615?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ILLINOIS+336+%28FEDERAL+AID+PRIMARY+ROUTE+315%29+PROPOSED+MACOMB+BYPASS+TO+I-474%2C+MCDONOUGH%2C+FULTON%2C+AND+PEORIA+COUNTIES%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.title=ILLINOIS+336+%28FEDERAL+AID+PRIMARY+ROUTE+315%29+PROPOSED+MACOMB+BYPASS+TO+I-474%2C+MCDONOUGH%2C+FULTON%2C+AND+PEORIA+COUNTIES%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Springfield, Illinois; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ILLINOIS 336 (FEDERAL AID PRIMARY ROUTE 315) PROPOSED MACOMB BYPASS TO I-474, MCDONOUGH, FULTON, AND PEORIA COUNTIES, ILLINOIS. [Part 6 of 16] T2 - ILLINOIS 336 (FEDERAL AID PRIMARY ROUTE 315) PROPOSED MACOMB BYPASS TO I-474, MCDONOUGH, FULTON, AND PEORIA COUNTIES, ILLINOIS. AN - 868223607; 14863-7_0006 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements within the Illinois (IL) 336 corridor from the proposed Macomb Bypass in McDonough County to Interstate 474 (I-474) west of Peoria, Illinois are proposed. The 60-mile-long project corridor includes parts of McDonough, Fulton, and Peoria counties and principal communities in and near the study area are Macomb, Canton, and Peoria. A No Build Alternative, which would incorporate all planned roadway improvements, and a Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Under the Build Alternative, the project would begin at the proposed Macomb Bypass and would be built as an expressway, except at the east end of the project where six miles would be constructed as freeway to accommodate the higher existing and projected future traffic volumes. Within the freeway section, access would only be allowed at grade-separated interchanges. Within the expressway section, at-grade intersections would be permitted at crossroads, and access would be permitted from residential and agricultural properties. From the bypass, the preferred alignment would extend east for 7.5 miles along 1400th Road to minimize farm severances. Just before the McDonough/Fulton County line, it would turn northeast and pass just south of Marietta. East of Marietta it would follow the existing IL 95 alignment across the Spoon River, and continue east on the IL 95 alignment for another four miles before heading northeast and bypassing Cuba just to the north. East of Cuba, the expressway would follow the County Highway 5 alignment for several miles, to just southwest of Canton, then pass Canton just west of the Illinois River Correctional Center and the Canton Airport, with an interchange at IL 9. Continuing north, the expressway would pass just east of the Illinois Department of Natural Resources Double T Conservation Area, then head northeast to join the IL 78 alignment in the vicinity of Norris before passing southeast of Farmington, continuing east and generally paralleling IL16, and finally moving north to connect with the Bellevue Stub, which would provide a connection to I-474 just west of Peoria. No timetable for real estate acquisition or construction has been established. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A four-lane divided highway between US 67 at Macomb and I-474 would complete the system linkage and route continuity of IL 336 from Quincy to Peoria and would provide more reliable and efficient transportation service across the project area, including improved access from the Peoria airport to destinations such as the meeting and conference facilities at Western Illinois University. Increased travel efficiency would reduce transportation costs and could prevent further economic decline in the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would require new right-of-way of 2,651 acres and would affect 2,015 acres of farmland, 157 acres of forest, and 4.1 acres of wetland. The highway would traverse 12 streams and 14 acres of floodplain. Displacements would include 26 residences and 4 commercial establishments. 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 09-0306D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110107, Final EIS--351 pages and maps, Appendices--480 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Illinois KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223607?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ILLINOIS+336+%28FEDERAL+AID+PRIMARY+ROUTE+315%29+PROPOSED+MACOMB+BYPASS+TO+I-474%2C+MCDONOUGH%2C+FULTON%2C+AND+PEORIA+COUNTIES%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.title=ILLINOIS+336+%28FEDERAL+AID+PRIMARY+ROUTE+315%29+PROPOSED+MACOMB+BYPASS+TO+I-474%2C+MCDONOUGH%2C+FULTON%2C+AND+PEORIA+COUNTIES%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Springfield, Illinois; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ILLINOIS 336 (FEDERAL AID PRIMARY ROUTE 315) PROPOSED MACOMB BYPASS TO I-474, MCDONOUGH, FULTON, AND PEORIA COUNTIES, ILLINOIS. [Part 5 of 16] T2 - ILLINOIS 336 (FEDERAL AID PRIMARY ROUTE 315) PROPOSED MACOMB BYPASS TO I-474, MCDONOUGH, FULTON, AND PEORIA COUNTIES, ILLINOIS. AN - 868223592; 14863-7_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements within the Illinois (IL) 336 corridor from the proposed Macomb Bypass in McDonough County to Interstate 474 (I-474) west of Peoria, Illinois are proposed. The 60-mile-long project corridor includes parts of McDonough, Fulton, and Peoria counties and principal communities in and near the study area are Macomb, Canton, and Peoria. A No Build Alternative, which would incorporate all planned roadway improvements, and a Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Under the Build Alternative, the project would begin at the proposed Macomb Bypass and would be built as an expressway, except at the east end of the project where six miles would be constructed as freeway to accommodate the higher existing and projected future traffic volumes. Within the freeway section, access would only be allowed at grade-separated interchanges. Within the expressway section, at-grade intersections would be permitted at crossroads, and access would be permitted from residential and agricultural properties. From the bypass, the preferred alignment would extend east for 7.5 miles along 1400th Road to minimize farm severances. Just before the McDonough/Fulton County line, it would turn northeast and pass just south of Marietta. East of Marietta it would follow the existing IL 95 alignment across the Spoon River, and continue east on the IL 95 alignment for another four miles before heading northeast and bypassing Cuba just to the north. East of Cuba, the expressway would follow the County Highway 5 alignment for several miles, to just southwest of Canton, then pass Canton just west of the Illinois River Correctional Center and the Canton Airport, with an interchange at IL 9. Continuing north, the expressway would pass just east of the Illinois Department of Natural Resources Double T Conservation Area, then head northeast to join the IL 78 alignment in the vicinity of Norris before passing southeast of Farmington, continuing east and generally paralleling IL16, and finally moving north to connect with the Bellevue Stub, which would provide a connection to I-474 just west of Peoria. No timetable for real estate acquisition or construction has been established. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A four-lane divided highway between US 67 at Macomb and I-474 would complete the system linkage and route continuity of IL 336 from Quincy to Peoria and would provide more reliable and efficient transportation service across the project area, including improved access from the Peoria airport to destinations such as the meeting and conference facilities at Western Illinois University. Increased travel efficiency would reduce transportation costs and could prevent further economic decline in the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would require new right-of-way of 2,651 acres and would affect 2,015 acres of farmland, 157 acres of forest, and 4.1 acres of wetland. The highway would traverse 12 streams and 14 acres of floodplain. Displacements would include 26 residences and 4 commercial establishments. 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 09-0306D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110107, Final EIS--351 pages and maps, Appendices--480 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Illinois KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223592?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ILLINOIS+336+%28FEDERAL+AID+PRIMARY+ROUTE+315%29+PROPOSED+MACOMB+BYPASS+TO+I-474%2C+MCDONOUGH%2C+FULTON%2C+AND+PEORIA+COUNTIES%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.title=ILLINOIS+336+%28FEDERAL+AID+PRIMARY+ROUTE+315%29+PROPOSED+MACOMB+BYPASS+TO+I-474%2C+MCDONOUGH%2C+FULTON%2C+AND+PEORIA+COUNTIES%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Springfield, Illinois; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ILLINOIS 336 (FEDERAL AID PRIMARY ROUTE 315) PROPOSED MACOMB BYPASS TO I-474, MCDONOUGH, FULTON, AND PEORIA COUNTIES, ILLINOIS. [Part 4 of 16] T2 - ILLINOIS 336 (FEDERAL AID PRIMARY ROUTE 315) PROPOSED MACOMB BYPASS TO I-474, MCDONOUGH, FULTON, AND PEORIA COUNTIES, ILLINOIS. AN - 868223582; 14863-7_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements within the Illinois (IL) 336 corridor from the proposed Macomb Bypass in McDonough County to Interstate 474 (I-474) west of Peoria, Illinois are proposed. The 60-mile-long project corridor includes parts of McDonough, Fulton, and Peoria counties and principal communities in and near the study area are Macomb, Canton, and Peoria. A No Build Alternative, which would incorporate all planned roadway improvements, and a Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Under the Build Alternative, the project would begin at the proposed Macomb Bypass and would be built as an expressway, except at the east end of the project where six miles would be constructed as freeway to accommodate the higher existing and projected future traffic volumes. Within the freeway section, access would only be allowed at grade-separated interchanges. Within the expressway section, at-grade intersections would be permitted at crossroads, and access would be permitted from residential and agricultural properties. From the bypass, the preferred alignment would extend east for 7.5 miles along 1400th Road to minimize farm severances. Just before the McDonough/Fulton County line, it would turn northeast and pass just south of Marietta. East of Marietta it would follow the existing IL 95 alignment across the Spoon River, and continue east on the IL 95 alignment for another four miles before heading northeast and bypassing Cuba just to the north. East of Cuba, the expressway would follow the County Highway 5 alignment for several miles, to just southwest of Canton, then pass Canton just west of the Illinois River Correctional Center and the Canton Airport, with an interchange at IL 9. Continuing north, the expressway would pass just east of the Illinois Department of Natural Resources Double T Conservation Area, then head northeast to join the IL 78 alignment in the vicinity of Norris before passing southeast of Farmington, continuing east and generally paralleling IL16, and finally moving north to connect with the Bellevue Stub, which would provide a connection to I-474 just west of Peoria. No timetable for real estate acquisition or construction has been established. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A four-lane divided highway between US 67 at Macomb and I-474 would complete the system linkage and route continuity of IL 336 from Quincy to Peoria and would provide more reliable and efficient transportation service across the project area, including improved access from the Peoria airport to destinations such as the meeting and conference facilities at Western Illinois University. Increased travel efficiency would reduce transportation costs and could prevent further economic decline in the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would require new right-of-way of 2,651 acres and would affect 2,015 acres of farmland, 157 acres of forest, and 4.1 acres of wetland. The highway would traverse 12 streams and 14 acres of floodplain. Displacements would include 26 residences and 4 commercial establishments. 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 09-0306D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110107, Final EIS--351 pages and maps, Appendices--480 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Illinois KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223582?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ILLINOIS+336+%28FEDERAL+AID+PRIMARY+ROUTE+315%29+PROPOSED+MACOMB+BYPASS+TO+I-474%2C+MCDONOUGH%2C+FULTON%2C+AND+PEORIA+COUNTIES%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.title=ILLINOIS+336+%28FEDERAL+AID+PRIMARY+ROUTE+315%29+PROPOSED+MACOMB+BYPASS+TO+I-474%2C+MCDONOUGH%2C+FULTON%2C+AND+PEORIA+COUNTIES%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Springfield, Illinois; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ILLINOIS 336 (FEDERAL AID PRIMARY ROUTE 315) PROPOSED MACOMB BYPASS TO I-474, MCDONOUGH, FULTON, AND PEORIA COUNTIES, ILLINOIS. [Part 3 of 16] T2 - ILLINOIS 336 (FEDERAL AID PRIMARY ROUTE 315) PROPOSED MACOMB BYPASS TO I-474, MCDONOUGH, FULTON, AND PEORIA COUNTIES, ILLINOIS. AN - 868223571; 14863-7_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements within the Illinois (IL) 336 corridor from the proposed Macomb Bypass in McDonough County to Interstate 474 (I-474) west of Peoria, Illinois are proposed. The 60-mile-long project corridor includes parts of McDonough, Fulton, and Peoria counties and principal communities in and near the study area are Macomb, Canton, and Peoria. A No Build Alternative, which would incorporate all planned roadway improvements, and a Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Under the Build Alternative, the project would begin at the proposed Macomb Bypass and would be built as an expressway, except at the east end of the project where six miles would be constructed as freeway to accommodate the higher existing and projected future traffic volumes. Within the freeway section, access would only be allowed at grade-separated interchanges. Within the expressway section, at-grade intersections would be permitted at crossroads, and access would be permitted from residential and agricultural properties. From the bypass, the preferred alignment would extend east for 7.5 miles along 1400th Road to minimize farm severances. Just before the McDonough/Fulton County line, it would turn northeast and pass just south of Marietta. East of Marietta it would follow the existing IL 95 alignment across the Spoon River, and continue east on the IL 95 alignment for another four miles before heading northeast and bypassing Cuba just to the north. East of Cuba, the expressway would follow the County Highway 5 alignment for several miles, to just southwest of Canton, then pass Canton just west of the Illinois River Correctional Center and the Canton Airport, with an interchange at IL 9. Continuing north, the expressway would pass just east of the Illinois Department of Natural Resources Double T Conservation Area, then head northeast to join the IL 78 alignment in the vicinity of Norris before passing southeast of Farmington, continuing east and generally paralleling IL16, and finally moving north to connect with the Bellevue Stub, which would provide a connection to I-474 just west of Peoria. No timetable for real estate acquisition or construction has been established. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A four-lane divided highway between US 67 at Macomb and I-474 would complete the system linkage and route continuity of IL 336 from Quincy to Peoria and would provide more reliable and efficient transportation service across the project area, including improved access from the Peoria airport to destinations such as the meeting and conference facilities at Western Illinois University. Increased travel efficiency would reduce transportation costs and could prevent further economic decline in the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would require new right-of-way of 2,651 acres and would affect 2,015 acres of farmland, 157 acres of forest, and 4.1 acres of wetland. The highway would traverse 12 streams and 14 acres of floodplain. Displacements would include 26 residences and 4 commercial establishments. 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 09-0306D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110107, Final EIS--351 pages and maps, Appendices--480 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Illinois KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223571?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ILLINOIS+336+%28FEDERAL+AID+PRIMARY+ROUTE+315%29+PROPOSED+MACOMB+BYPASS+TO+I-474%2C+MCDONOUGH%2C+FULTON%2C+AND+PEORIA+COUNTIES%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.title=ILLINOIS+336+%28FEDERAL+AID+PRIMARY+ROUTE+315%29+PROPOSED+MACOMB+BYPASS+TO+I-474%2C+MCDONOUGH%2C+FULTON%2C+AND+PEORIA+COUNTIES%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Springfield, Illinois; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 34 of 40] T2 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 868223282; 14855-9_0034 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements to the South Capitol Street Corridor, including the replacement of the Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge over the Anacostia River, in the District of Columbia are proposed. The project would reconfigure South Capitol Street as an urban boulevard providing a grand, scenic gateway to the nation's capital. South Capitol Street was envisioned as one of the symbolic gateways to the city, but currently lacks any characteristics of its historic and intended function. As an urban freeway, it has become a conduit for through traffic at the expense of serving the needs of local residents and businesses. Transportation infrastructure is obsolete, in deteriorating condition, and fails to provide necessary connections to community destinations. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the preferred alternative, which is a refinement of Alternative 2 from the draft EIS, the project would: rebuild South Capitol Street as a six-lane boulevard west of the Anacostia River; reconstruct at-grade intersections along South Capitol Street at I, N, O, P, K, L and M streets; reconstruct the ramp from northbound South Capitol Street to Interstate 395 (I-395) as an at-grade intersection; construct a four-lane signalized traffic oval connecting South Capitol Street, Potomac Avenue and Q Street Southwest; and replace the existing Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge with an arched bascule bridge that includes bicycle and pedestrian access. A traffic circle would be constructed at the eastern approach to the new bridge to connect South Capitol Street, Suitland Parkway and Howard Road Southeast. Anacostia Drive would be extended to the north gate entrance of the U.S. Naval Support Facility Anacostia and an access road would be constructed from Anacostia Drive to Howard Road and the traffic circle. The existing Suitland Parkway/I-295 interchange would be replaced with a two-lane loop ramp for I-295 southbound at Suitland Parkway and a new traffic signal at the merge point with Suitland Parkway. Additionally, the I-295 bridge over South Capitol Street would be reconstructed, the I-295 bridge over Howard Road would be widened, the Martin Luther King, Jr. (MLK) Avenue overpass at Suitland Parkway would be widened to accommodate a new multi-use trail, a single-point center ramp interchange would create new access between Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue, the pedestrian over-pass over Suitland Parkway between Sheridan Road and Barry Farms would be reconstructed, and signed bicycle routes along New Jersey Avenue and throughout the project area would provide improved access to the Anacostia Riverwalk Trail, the riverfront, and historic Anacostia. Total construction costs are estimated at $806 million in fiscal year 2014 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would improve transportation safety, mobility, and access along the corridor. More complete connections between I-295 and Suitland Parkway, and Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue would enhance regional and local multi-modal mobility, allowing local streets to serve local traffic. Ongoing economic development activities related to new housing, employment, and recreation opportunities would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction impacts would include: travel pattern modifications for all modes of transportation; access changes; increased travel time; impacts to on-street parking; road closings; and temporary increases in noise levels, fugitive dust, and mobile source emissions. Right-of-way requirements would displace four commercial businesses. Nineteen hazardous waste sites would be encountered by construction workers and it is anticipated that some risk of subsurface contamination exists throughout the proposed construction area. Two historic resources, Suitland Parkway and the Plan of the City of Washington, would be adversely affected, but impacts would be mitigated. 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.), 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 08-0202D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110099, Final EIS--645 pages, Comments (Appendix 1)--475 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 34 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-DC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Urban Renewal KW - Anacostia River KW - District of Columbia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223282?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ILLINOIS 336 (FEDERAL AID PRIMARY ROUTE 315) PROPOSED MACOMB BYPASS TO I-474, MCDONOUGH, FULTON, AND PEORIA COUNTIES, ILLINOIS. [Part 16 of 16] T2 - ILLINOIS 336 (FEDERAL AID PRIMARY ROUTE 315) PROPOSED MACOMB BYPASS TO I-474, MCDONOUGH, FULTON, AND PEORIA COUNTIES, ILLINOIS. AN - 868223220; 14863-7_0016 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements within the Illinois (IL) 336 corridor from the proposed Macomb Bypass in McDonough County to Interstate 474 (I-474) west of Peoria, Illinois are proposed. The 60-mile-long project corridor includes parts of McDonough, Fulton, and Peoria counties and principal communities in and near the study area are Macomb, Canton, and Peoria. A No Build Alternative, which would incorporate all planned roadway improvements, and a Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Under the Build Alternative, the project would begin at the proposed Macomb Bypass and would be built as an expressway, except at the east end of the project where six miles would be constructed as freeway to accommodate the higher existing and projected future traffic volumes. Within the freeway section, access would only be allowed at grade-separated interchanges. Within the expressway section, at-grade intersections would be permitted at crossroads, and access would be permitted from residential and agricultural properties. From the bypass, the preferred alignment would extend east for 7.5 miles along 1400th Road to minimize farm severances. Just before the McDonough/Fulton County line, it would turn northeast and pass just south of Marietta. East of Marietta it would follow the existing IL 95 alignment across the Spoon River, and continue east on the IL 95 alignment for another four miles before heading northeast and bypassing Cuba just to the north. East of Cuba, the expressway would follow the County Highway 5 alignment for several miles, to just southwest of Canton, then pass Canton just west of the Illinois River Correctional Center and the Canton Airport, with an interchange at IL 9. Continuing north, the expressway would pass just east of the Illinois Department of Natural Resources Double T Conservation Area, then head northeast to join the IL 78 alignment in the vicinity of Norris before passing southeast of Farmington, continuing east and generally paralleling IL16, and finally moving north to connect with the Bellevue Stub, which would provide a connection to I-474 just west of Peoria. No timetable for real estate acquisition or construction has been established. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A four-lane divided highway between US 67 at Macomb and I-474 would complete the system linkage and route continuity of IL 336 from Quincy to Peoria and would provide more reliable and efficient transportation service across the project area, including improved access from the Peoria airport to destinations such as the meeting and conference facilities at Western Illinois University. Increased travel efficiency would reduce transportation costs and could prevent further economic decline in the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would require new right-of-way of 2,651 acres and would affect 2,015 acres of farmland, 157 acres of forest, and 4.1 acres of wetland. The highway would traverse 12 streams and 14 acres of floodplain. Displacements would include 26 residences and 4 commercial establishments. 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 09-0306D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110107, Final EIS--351 pages and maps, Appendices--480 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 16 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Illinois KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223220?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ILLINOIS+336+%28FEDERAL+AID+PRIMARY+ROUTE+315%29+PROPOSED+MACOMB+BYPASS+TO+I-474%2C+MCDONOUGH%2C+FULTON%2C+AND+PEORIA+COUNTIES%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.title=ILLINOIS+336+%28FEDERAL+AID+PRIMARY+ROUTE+315%29+PROPOSED+MACOMB+BYPASS+TO+I-474%2C+MCDONOUGH%2C+FULTON%2C+AND+PEORIA+COUNTIES%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Springfield, Illinois; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ILLINOIS 336 (FEDERAL AID PRIMARY ROUTE 315) PROPOSED MACOMB BYPASS TO I-474, MCDONOUGH, FULTON, AND PEORIA COUNTIES, ILLINOIS. [Part 15 of 16] T2 - ILLINOIS 336 (FEDERAL AID PRIMARY ROUTE 315) PROPOSED MACOMB BYPASS TO I-474, MCDONOUGH, FULTON, AND PEORIA COUNTIES, ILLINOIS. AN - 868223201; 14863-7_0015 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements within the Illinois (IL) 336 corridor from the proposed Macomb Bypass in McDonough County to Interstate 474 (I-474) west of Peoria, Illinois are proposed. The 60-mile-long project corridor includes parts of McDonough, Fulton, and Peoria counties and principal communities in and near the study area are Macomb, Canton, and Peoria. A No Build Alternative, which would incorporate all planned roadway improvements, and a Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Under the Build Alternative, the project would begin at the proposed Macomb Bypass and would be built as an expressway, except at the east end of the project where six miles would be constructed as freeway to accommodate the higher existing and projected future traffic volumes. Within the freeway section, access would only be allowed at grade-separated interchanges. Within the expressway section, at-grade intersections would be permitted at crossroads, and access would be permitted from residential and agricultural properties. From the bypass, the preferred alignment would extend east for 7.5 miles along 1400th Road to minimize farm severances. Just before the McDonough/Fulton County line, it would turn northeast and pass just south of Marietta. East of Marietta it would follow the existing IL 95 alignment across the Spoon River, and continue east on the IL 95 alignment for another four miles before heading northeast and bypassing Cuba just to the north. East of Cuba, the expressway would follow the County Highway 5 alignment for several miles, to just southwest of Canton, then pass Canton just west of the Illinois River Correctional Center and the Canton Airport, with an interchange at IL 9. Continuing north, the expressway would pass just east of the Illinois Department of Natural Resources Double T Conservation Area, then head northeast to join the IL 78 alignment in the vicinity of Norris before passing southeast of Farmington, continuing east and generally paralleling IL16, and finally moving north to connect with the Bellevue Stub, which would provide a connection to I-474 just west of Peoria. No timetable for real estate acquisition or construction has been established. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A four-lane divided highway between US 67 at Macomb and I-474 would complete the system linkage and route continuity of IL 336 from Quincy to Peoria and would provide more reliable and efficient transportation service across the project area, including improved access from the Peoria airport to destinations such as the meeting and conference facilities at Western Illinois University. Increased travel efficiency would reduce transportation costs and could prevent further economic decline in the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would require new right-of-way of 2,651 acres and would affect 2,015 acres of farmland, 157 acres of forest, and 4.1 acres of wetland. The highway would traverse 12 streams and 14 acres of floodplain. Displacements would include 26 residences and 4 commercial establishments. 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 09-0306D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110107, Final EIS--351 pages and maps, Appendices--480 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Illinois KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223201?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ILLINOIS+336+%28FEDERAL+AID+PRIMARY+ROUTE+315%29+PROPOSED+MACOMB+BYPASS+TO+I-474%2C+MCDONOUGH%2C+FULTON%2C+AND+PEORIA+COUNTIES%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.title=ILLINOIS+336+%28FEDERAL+AID+PRIMARY+ROUTE+315%29+PROPOSED+MACOMB+BYPASS+TO+I-474%2C+MCDONOUGH%2C+FULTON%2C+AND+PEORIA+COUNTIES%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Springfield, Illinois; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ILLINOIS 336 (FEDERAL AID PRIMARY ROUTE 315) PROPOSED MACOMB BYPASS TO I-474, MCDONOUGH, FULTON, AND PEORIA COUNTIES, ILLINOIS. [Part 14 of 16] T2 - ILLINOIS 336 (FEDERAL AID PRIMARY ROUTE 315) PROPOSED MACOMB BYPASS TO I-474, MCDONOUGH, FULTON, AND PEORIA COUNTIES, ILLINOIS. AN - 868223184; 14863-7_0014 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements within the Illinois (IL) 336 corridor from the proposed Macomb Bypass in McDonough County to Interstate 474 (I-474) west of Peoria, Illinois are proposed. The 60-mile-long project corridor includes parts of McDonough, Fulton, and Peoria counties and principal communities in and near the study area are Macomb, Canton, and Peoria. A No Build Alternative, which would incorporate all planned roadway improvements, and a Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Under the Build Alternative, the project would begin at the proposed Macomb Bypass and would be built as an expressway, except at the east end of the project where six miles would be constructed as freeway to accommodate the higher existing and projected future traffic volumes. Within the freeway section, access would only be allowed at grade-separated interchanges. Within the expressway section, at-grade intersections would be permitted at crossroads, and access would be permitted from residential and agricultural properties. From the bypass, the preferred alignment would extend east for 7.5 miles along 1400th Road to minimize farm severances. Just before the McDonough/Fulton County line, it would turn northeast and pass just south of Marietta. East of Marietta it would follow the existing IL 95 alignment across the Spoon River, and continue east on the IL 95 alignment for another four miles before heading northeast and bypassing Cuba just to the north. East of Cuba, the expressway would follow the County Highway 5 alignment for several miles, to just southwest of Canton, then pass Canton just west of the Illinois River Correctional Center and the Canton Airport, with an interchange at IL 9. Continuing north, the expressway would pass just east of the Illinois Department of Natural Resources Double T Conservation Area, then head northeast to join the IL 78 alignment in the vicinity of Norris before passing southeast of Farmington, continuing east and generally paralleling IL16, and finally moving north to connect with the Bellevue Stub, which would provide a connection to I-474 just west of Peoria. No timetable for real estate acquisition or construction has been established. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A four-lane divided highway between US 67 at Macomb and I-474 would complete the system linkage and route continuity of IL 336 from Quincy to Peoria and would provide more reliable and efficient transportation service across the project area, including improved access from the Peoria airport to destinations such as the meeting and conference facilities at Western Illinois University. Increased travel efficiency would reduce transportation costs and could prevent further economic decline in the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would require new right-of-way of 2,651 acres and would affect 2,015 acres of farmland, 157 acres of forest, and 4.1 acres of wetland. The highway would traverse 12 streams and 14 acres of floodplain. Displacements would include 26 residences and 4 commercial establishments. 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 09-0306D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110107, Final EIS--351 pages and maps, Appendices--480 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Illinois KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223184?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ILLINOIS+336+%28FEDERAL+AID+PRIMARY+ROUTE+315%29+PROPOSED+MACOMB+BYPASS+TO+I-474%2C+MCDONOUGH%2C+FULTON%2C+AND+PEORIA+COUNTIES%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.title=ILLINOIS+336+%28FEDERAL+AID+PRIMARY+ROUTE+315%29+PROPOSED+MACOMB+BYPASS+TO+I-474%2C+MCDONOUGH%2C+FULTON%2C+AND+PEORIA+COUNTIES%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Springfield, Illinois; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ILLINOIS 336 (FEDERAL AID PRIMARY ROUTE 315) PROPOSED MACOMB BYPASS TO I-474, MCDONOUGH, FULTON, AND PEORIA COUNTIES, ILLINOIS. [Part 13 of 16] T2 - ILLINOIS 336 (FEDERAL AID PRIMARY ROUTE 315) PROPOSED MACOMB BYPASS TO I-474, MCDONOUGH, FULTON, AND PEORIA COUNTIES, ILLINOIS. AN - 868223175; 14863-7_0013 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements within the Illinois (IL) 336 corridor from the proposed Macomb Bypass in McDonough County to Interstate 474 (I-474) west of Peoria, Illinois are proposed. The 60-mile-long project corridor includes parts of McDonough, Fulton, and Peoria counties and principal communities in and near the study area are Macomb, Canton, and Peoria. A No Build Alternative, which would incorporate all planned roadway improvements, and a Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Under the Build Alternative, the project would begin at the proposed Macomb Bypass and would be built as an expressway, except at the east end of the project where six miles would be constructed as freeway to accommodate the higher existing and projected future traffic volumes. Within the freeway section, access would only be allowed at grade-separated interchanges. Within the expressway section, at-grade intersections would be permitted at crossroads, and access would be permitted from residential and agricultural properties. From the bypass, the preferred alignment would extend east for 7.5 miles along 1400th Road to minimize farm severances. Just before the McDonough/Fulton County line, it would turn northeast and pass just south of Marietta. East of Marietta it would follow the existing IL 95 alignment across the Spoon River, and continue east on the IL 95 alignment for another four miles before heading northeast and bypassing Cuba just to the north. East of Cuba, the expressway would follow the County Highway 5 alignment for several miles, to just southwest of Canton, then pass Canton just west of the Illinois River Correctional Center and the Canton Airport, with an interchange at IL 9. Continuing north, the expressway would pass just east of the Illinois Department of Natural Resources Double T Conservation Area, then head northeast to join the IL 78 alignment in the vicinity of Norris before passing southeast of Farmington, continuing east and generally paralleling IL16, and finally moving north to connect with the Bellevue Stub, which would provide a connection to I-474 just west of Peoria. No timetable for real estate acquisition or construction has been established. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A four-lane divided highway between US 67 at Macomb and I-474 would complete the system linkage and route continuity of IL 336 from Quincy to Peoria and would provide more reliable and efficient transportation service across the project area, including improved access from the Peoria airport to destinations such as the meeting and conference facilities at Western Illinois University. Increased travel efficiency would reduce transportation costs and could prevent further economic decline in the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would require new right-of-way of 2,651 acres and would affect 2,015 acres of farmland, 157 acres of forest, and 4.1 acres of wetland. The highway would traverse 12 streams and 14 acres of floodplain. Displacements would include 26 residences and 4 commercial establishments. 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 09-0306D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110107, Final EIS--351 pages and maps, Appendices--480 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Illinois KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223175?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ILLINOIS+336+%28FEDERAL+AID+PRIMARY+ROUTE+315%29+PROPOSED+MACOMB+BYPASS+TO+I-474%2C+MCDONOUGH%2C+FULTON%2C+AND+PEORIA+COUNTIES%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.title=ILLINOIS+336+%28FEDERAL+AID+PRIMARY+ROUTE+315%29+PROPOSED+MACOMB+BYPASS+TO+I-474%2C+MCDONOUGH%2C+FULTON%2C+AND+PEORIA+COUNTIES%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Springfield, Illinois; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ILLINOIS 336 (FEDERAL AID PRIMARY ROUTE 315) PROPOSED MACOMB BYPASS TO I-474, MCDONOUGH, FULTON, AND PEORIA COUNTIES, ILLINOIS. [Part 12 of 16] T2 - ILLINOIS 336 (FEDERAL AID PRIMARY ROUTE 315) PROPOSED MACOMB BYPASS TO I-474, MCDONOUGH, FULTON, AND PEORIA COUNTIES, ILLINOIS. AN - 868223152; 14863-7_0012 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements within the Illinois (IL) 336 corridor from the proposed Macomb Bypass in McDonough County to Interstate 474 (I-474) west of Peoria, Illinois are proposed. The 60-mile-long project corridor includes parts of McDonough, Fulton, and Peoria counties and principal communities in and near the study area are Macomb, Canton, and Peoria. A No Build Alternative, which would incorporate all planned roadway improvements, and a Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Under the Build Alternative, the project would begin at the proposed Macomb Bypass and would be built as an expressway, except at the east end of the project where six miles would be constructed as freeway to accommodate the higher existing and projected future traffic volumes. Within the freeway section, access would only be allowed at grade-separated interchanges. Within the expressway section, at-grade intersections would be permitted at crossroads, and access would be permitted from residential and agricultural properties. From the bypass, the preferred alignment would extend east for 7.5 miles along 1400th Road to minimize farm severances. Just before the McDonough/Fulton County line, it would turn northeast and pass just south of Marietta. East of Marietta it would follow the existing IL 95 alignment across the Spoon River, and continue east on the IL 95 alignment for another four miles before heading northeast and bypassing Cuba just to the north. East of Cuba, the expressway would follow the County Highway 5 alignment for several miles, to just southwest of Canton, then pass Canton just west of the Illinois River Correctional Center and the Canton Airport, with an interchange at IL 9. Continuing north, the expressway would pass just east of the Illinois Department of Natural Resources Double T Conservation Area, then head northeast to join the IL 78 alignment in the vicinity of Norris before passing southeast of Farmington, continuing east and generally paralleling IL16, and finally moving north to connect with the Bellevue Stub, which would provide a connection to I-474 just west of Peoria. No timetable for real estate acquisition or construction has been established. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A four-lane divided highway between US 67 at Macomb and I-474 would complete the system linkage and route continuity of IL 336 from Quincy to Peoria and would provide more reliable and efficient transportation service across the project area, including improved access from the Peoria airport to destinations such as the meeting and conference facilities at Western Illinois University. Increased travel efficiency would reduce transportation costs and could prevent further economic decline in the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would require new right-of-way of 2,651 acres and would affect 2,015 acres of farmland, 157 acres of forest, and 4.1 acres of wetland. The highway would traverse 12 streams and 14 acres of floodplain. Displacements would include 26 residences and 4 commercial establishments. 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 09-0306D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110107, Final EIS--351 pages and maps, Appendices--480 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Illinois KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223152?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ILLINOIS+336+%28FEDERAL+AID+PRIMARY+ROUTE+315%29+PROPOSED+MACOMB+BYPASS+TO+I-474%2C+MCDONOUGH%2C+FULTON%2C+AND+PEORIA+COUNTIES%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.title=ILLINOIS+336+%28FEDERAL+AID+PRIMARY+ROUTE+315%29+PROPOSED+MACOMB+BYPASS+TO+I-474%2C+MCDONOUGH%2C+FULTON%2C+AND+PEORIA+COUNTIES%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Springfield, Illinois; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ILLINOIS 336 (FEDERAL AID PRIMARY ROUTE 315) PROPOSED MACOMB BYPASS TO I-474, MCDONOUGH, FULTON, AND PEORIA COUNTIES, ILLINOIS. [Part 11 of 16] T2 - ILLINOIS 336 (FEDERAL AID PRIMARY ROUTE 315) PROPOSED MACOMB BYPASS TO I-474, MCDONOUGH, FULTON, AND PEORIA COUNTIES, ILLINOIS. AN - 868223142; 14863-7_0011 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements within the Illinois (IL) 336 corridor from the proposed Macomb Bypass in McDonough County to Interstate 474 (I-474) west of Peoria, Illinois are proposed. The 60-mile-long project corridor includes parts of McDonough, Fulton, and Peoria counties and principal communities in and near the study area are Macomb, Canton, and Peoria. A No Build Alternative, which would incorporate all planned roadway improvements, and a Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Under the Build Alternative, the project would begin at the proposed Macomb Bypass and would be built as an expressway, except at the east end of the project where six miles would be constructed as freeway to accommodate the higher existing and projected future traffic volumes. Within the freeway section, access would only be allowed at grade-separated interchanges. Within the expressway section, at-grade intersections would be permitted at crossroads, and access would be permitted from residential and agricultural properties. From the bypass, the preferred alignment would extend east for 7.5 miles along 1400th Road to minimize farm severances. Just before the McDonough/Fulton County line, it would turn northeast and pass just south of Marietta. East of Marietta it would follow the existing IL 95 alignment across the Spoon River, and continue east on the IL 95 alignment for another four miles before heading northeast and bypassing Cuba just to the north. East of Cuba, the expressway would follow the County Highway 5 alignment for several miles, to just southwest of Canton, then pass Canton just west of the Illinois River Correctional Center and the Canton Airport, with an interchange at IL 9. Continuing north, the expressway would pass just east of the Illinois Department of Natural Resources Double T Conservation Area, then head northeast to join the IL 78 alignment in the vicinity of Norris before passing southeast of Farmington, continuing east and generally paralleling IL16, and finally moving north to connect with the Bellevue Stub, which would provide a connection to I-474 just west of Peoria. No timetable for real estate acquisition or construction has been established. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A four-lane divided highway between US 67 at Macomb and I-474 would complete the system linkage and route continuity of IL 336 from Quincy to Peoria and would provide more reliable and efficient transportation service across the project area, including improved access from the Peoria airport to destinations such as the meeting and conference facilities at Western Illinois University. Increased travel efficiency would reduce transportation costs and could prevent further economic decline in the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would require new right-of-way of 2,651 acres and would affect 2,015 acres of farmland, 157 acres of forest, and 4.1 acres of wetland. The highway would traverse 12 streams and 14 acres of floodplain. Displacements would include 26 residences and 4 commercial establishments. 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 09-0306D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110107, Final EIS--351 pages and maps, Appendices--480 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Illinois KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223142?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ILLINOIS+336+%28FEDERAL+AID+PRIMARY+ROUTE+315%29+PROPOSED+MACOMB+BYPASS+TO+I-474%2C+MCDONOUGH%2C+FULTON%2C+AND+PEORIA+COUNTIES%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.title=ILLINOIS+336+%28FEDERAL+AID+PRIMARY+ROUTE+315%29+PROPOSED+MACOMB+BYPASS+TO+I-474%2C+MCDONOUGH%2C+FULTON%2C+AND+PEORIA+COUNTIES%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Springfield, Illinois; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ILLINOIS 336 (FEDERAL AID PRIMARY ROUTE 315) PROPOSED MACOMB BYPASS TO I-474, MCDONOUGH, FULTON, AND PEORIA COUNTIES, ILLINOIS. [Part 10 of 16] T2 - ILLINOIS 336 (FEDERAL AID PRIMARY ROUTE 315) PROPOSED MACOMB BYPASS TO I-474, MCDONOUGH, FULTON, AND PEORIA COUNTIES, ILLINOIS. AN - 868223133; 14863-7_0010 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements within the Illinois (IL) 336 corridor from the proposed Macomb Bypass in McDonough County to Interstate 474 (I-474) west of Peoria, Illinois are proposed. The 60-mile-long project corridor includes parts of McDonough, Fulton, and Peoria counties and principal communities in and near the study area are Macomb, Canton, and Peoria. A No Build Alternative, which would incorporate all planned roadway improvements, and a Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Under the Build Alternative, the project would begin at the proposed Macomb Bypass and would be built as an expressway, except at the east end of the project where six miles would be constructed as freeway to accommodate the higher existing and projected future traffic volumes. Within the freeway section, access would only be allowed at grade-separated interchanges. Within the expressway section, at-grade intersections would be permitted at crossroads, and access would be permitted from residential and agricultural properties. From the bypass, the preferred alignment would extend east for 7.5 miles along 1400th Road to minimize farm severances. Just before the McDonough/Fulton County line, it would turn northeast and pass just south of Marietta. East of Marietta it would follow the existing IL 95 alignment across the Spoon River, and continue east on the IL 95 alignment for another four miles before heading northeast and bypassing Cuba just to the north. East of Cuba, the expressway would follow the County Highway 5 alignment for several miles, to just southwest of Canton, then pass Canton just west of the Illinois River Correctional Center and the Canton Airport, with an interchange at IL 9. Continuing north, the expressway would pass just east of the Illinois Department of Natural Resources Double T Conservation Area, then head northeast to join the IL 78 alignment in the vicinity of Norris before passing southeast of Farmington, continuing east and generally paralleling IL16, and finally moving north to connect with the Bellevue Stub, which would provide a connection to I-474 just west of Peoria. No timetable for real estate acquisition or construction has been established. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A four-lane divided highway between US 67 at Macomb and I-474 would complete the system linkage and route continuity of IL 336 from Quincy to Peoria and would provide more reliable and efficient transportation service across the project area, including improved access from the Peoria airport to destinations such as the meeting and conference facilities at Western Illinois University. Increased travel efficiency would reduce transportation costs and could prevent further economic decline in the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would require new right-of-way of 2,651 acres and would affect 2,015 acres of farmland, 157 acres of forest, and 4.1 acres of wetland. The highway would traverse 12 streams and 14 acres of floodplain. Displacements would include 26 residences and 4 commercial establishments. 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 09-0306D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110107, Final EIS--351 pages and maps, Appendices--480 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Illinois KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223133?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ILLINOIS+336+%28FEDERAL+AID+PRIMARY+ROUTE+315%29+PROPOSED+MACOMB+BYPASS+TO+I-474%2C+MCDONOUGH%2C+FULTON%2C+AND+PEORIA+COUNTIES%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.title=ILLINOIS+336+%28FEDERAL+AID+PRIMARY+ROUTE+315%29+PROPOSED+MACOMB+BYPASS+TO+I-474%2C+MCDONOUGH%2C+FULTON%2C+AND+PEORIA+COUNTIES%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Springfield, Illinois; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ILLINOIS 336 (FEDERAL AID PRIMARY ROUTE 315) PROPOSED MACOMB BYPASS TO I-474, MCDONOUGH, FULTON, AND PEORIA COUNTIES, ILLINOIS. [Part 2 of 16] T2 - ILLINOIS 336 (FEDERAL AID PRIMARY ROUTE 315) PROPOSED MACOMB BYPASS TO I-474, MCDONOUGH, FULTON, AND PEORIA COUNTIES, ILLINOIS. AN - 868222946; 14863-7_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements within the Illinois (IL) 336 corridor from the proposed Macomb Bypass in McDonough County to Interstate 474 (I-474) west of Peoria, Illinois are proposed. The 60-mile-long project corridor includes parts of McDonough, Fulton, and Peoria counties and principal communities in and near the study area are Macomb, Canton, and Peoria. A No Build Alternative, which would incorporate all planned roadway improvements, and a Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Under the Build Alternative, the project would begin at the proposed Macomb Bypass and would be built as an expressway, except at the east end of the project where six miles would be constructed as freeway to accommodate the higher existing and projected future traffic volumes. Within the freeway section, access would only be allowed at grade-separated interchanges. Within the expressway section, at-grade intersections would be permitted at crossroads, and access would be permitted from residential and agricultural properties. From the bypass, the preferred alignment would extend east for 7.5 miles along 1400th Road to minimize farm severances. Just before the McDonough/Fulton County line, it would turn northeast and pass just south of Marietta. East of Marietta it would follow the existing IL 95 alignment across the Spoon River, and continue east on the IL 95 alignment for another four miles before heading northeast and bypassing Cuba just to the north. East of Cuba, the expressway would follow the County Highway 5 alignment for several miles, to just southwest of Canton, then pass Canton just west of the Illinois River Correctional Center and the Canton Airport, with an interchange at IL 9. Continuing north, the expressway would pass just east of the Illinois Department of Natural Resources Double T Conservation Area, then head northeast to join the IL 78 alignment in the vicinity of Norris before passing southeast of Farmington, continuing east and generally paralleling IL16, and finally moving north to connect with the Bellevue Stub, which would provide a connection to I-474 just west of Peoria. No timetable for real estate acquisition or construction has been established. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A four-lane divided highway between US 67 at Macomb and I-474 would complete the system linkage and route continuity of IL 336 from Quincy to Peoria and would provide more reliable and efficient transportation service across the project area, including improved access from the Peoria airport to destinations such as the meeting and conference facilities at Western Illinois University. Increased travel efficiency would reduce transportation costs and could prevent further economic decline in the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would require new right-of-way of 2,651 acres and would affect 2,015 acres of farmland, 157 acres of forest, and 4.1 acres of wetland. The highway would traverse 12 streams and 14 acres of floodplain. Displacements would include 26 residences and 4 commercial establishments. 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 09-0306D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110107, Final EIS--351 pages and maps, Appendices--480 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Illinois KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868222946?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ILLINOIS+336+%28FEDERAL+AID+PRIMARY+ROUTE+315%29+PROPOSED+MACOMB+BYPASS+TO+I-474%2C+MCDONOUGH%2C+FULTON%2C+AND+PEORIA+COUNTIES%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.title=ILLINOIS+336+%28FEDERAL+AID+PRIMARY+ROUTE+315%29+PROPOSED+MACOMB+BYPASS+TO+I-474%2C+MCDONOUGH%2C+FULTON%2C+AND+PEORIA+COUNTIES%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Springfield, Illinois; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ILLINOIS 336 (FEDERAL AID PRIMARY ROUTE 315) PROPOSED MACOMB BYPASS TO I-474, MCDONOUGH, FULTON, AND PEORIA COUNTIES, ILLINOIS. AN - 16384512; 14863 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements within the Illinois (IL) 336 corridor from the proposed Macomb Bypass in McDonough County to Interstate 474 (I-474) west of Peoria, Illinois are proposed. The 60-mile-long project corridor includes parts of McDonough, Fulton, and Peoria counties and principal communities in and near the study area are Macomb, Canton, and Peoria. A No Build Alternative, which would incorporate all planned roadway improvements, and a Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Under the Build Alternative, the project would begin at the proposed Macomb Bypass and would be built as an expressway, except at the east end of the project where six miles would be constructed as freeway to accommodate the higher existing and projected future traffic volumes. Within the freeway section, access would only be allowed at grade-separated interchanges. Within the expressway section, at-grade intersections would be permitted at crossroads, and access would be permitted from residential and agricultural properties. From the bypass, the preferred alignment would extend east for 7.5 miles along 1400th Road to minimize farm severances. Just before the McDonough/Fulton County line, it would turn northeast and pass just south of Marietta. East of Marietta it would follow the existing IL 95 alignment across the Spoon River, and continue east on the IL 95 alignment for another four miles before heading northeast and bypassing Cuba just to the north. East of Cuba, the expressway would follow the County Highway 5 alignment for several miles, to just southwest of Canton, then pass Canton just west of the Illinois River Correctional Center and the Canton Airport, with an interchange at IL 9. Continuing north, the expressway would pass just east of the Illinois Department of Natural Resources Double T Conservation Area, then head northeast to join the IL 78 alignment in the vicinity of Norris before passing southeast of Farmington, continuing east and generally paralleling IL16, and finally moving north to connect with the Bellevue Stub, which would provide a connection to I-474 just west of Peoria. No timetable for real estate acquisition or construction has been established. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A four-lane divided highway between US 67 at Macomb and I-474 would complete the system linkage and route continuity of IL 336 from Quincy to Peoria and would provide more reliable and efficient transportation service across the project area, including improved access from the Peoria airport to destinations such as the meeting and conference facilities at Western Illinois University. Increased travel efficiency would reduce transportation costs and could prevent further economic decline in the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would require new right-of-way of 2,651 acres and would affect 2,015 acres of farmland, 157 acres of forest, and 4.1 acres of wetland. The highway would traverse 12 streams and 14 acres of floodplain. Displacements would include 26 residences and 4 commercial establishments. 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 09-0306D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110107, Final EIS--351 pages and maps, Appendices--480 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Illinois KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16384512?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ILLINOIS+336+%28FEDERAL+AID+PRIMARY+ROUTE+315%29+PROPOSED+MACOMB+BYPASS+TO+I-474%2C+MCDONOUGH%2C+FULTON%2C+AND+PEORIA+COUNTIES%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.title=ILLINOIS+336+%28FEDERAL+AID+PRIMARY+ROUTE+315%29+PROPOSED+MACOMB+BYPASS+TO+I-474%2C+MCDONOUGH%2C+FULTON%2C+AND+PEORIA+COUNTIES%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Springfield, Illinois; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 16367567; 14855 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements to the South Capitol Street Corridor, including the replacement of the Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge over the Anacostia River, in the District of Columbia are proposed. The project would reconfigure South Capitol Street as an urban boulevard providing a grand, scenic gateway to the nation's capital. South Capitol Street was envisioned as one of the symbolic gateways to the city, but currently lacks any characteristics of its historic and intended function. As an urban freeway, it has become a conduit for through traffic at the expense of serving the needs of local residents and businesses. Transportation infrastructure is obsolete, in deteriorating condition, and fails to provide necessary connections to community destinations. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the preferred alternative, which is a refinement of Alternative 2 from the draft EIS, the project would: rebuild South Capitol Street as a six-lane boulevard west of the Anacostia River; reconstruct at-grade intersections along South Capitol Street at I, N, O, P, K, L and M streets; reconstruct the ramp from northbound South Capitol Street to Interstate 395 (I-395) as an at-grade intersection; construct a four-lane signalized traffic oval connecting South Capitol Street, Potomac Avenue and Q Street Southwest; and replace the existing Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge with an arched bascule bridge that includes bicycle and pedestrian access. A traffic circle would be constructed at the eastern approach to the new bridge to connect South Capitol Street, Suitland Parkway and Howard Road Southeast. Anacostia Drive would be extended to the north gate entrance of the U.S. Naval Support Facility Anacostia and an access road would be constructed from Anacostia Drive to Howard Road and the traffic circle. The existing Suitland Parkway/I-295 interchange would be replaced with a two-lane loop ramp for I-295 southbound at Suitland Parkway and a new traffic signal at the merge point with Suitland Parkway. Additionally, the I-295 bridge over South Capitol Street would be reconstructed, the I-295 bridge over Howard Road would be widened, the Martin Luther King, Jr. (MLK) Avenue overpass at Suitland Parkway would be widened to accommodate a new multi-use trail, a single-point center ramp interchange would create new access between Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue, the pedestrian over-pass over Suitland Parkway between Sheridan Road and Barry Farms would be reconstructed, and signed bicycle routes along New Jersey Avenue and throughout the project area would provide improved access to the Anacostia Riverwalk Trail, the riverfront, and historic Anacostia. Total construction costs are estimated at $806 million in fiscal year 2014 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would improve transportation safety, mobility, and access along the corridor. More complete connections between I-295 and Suitland Parkway, and Suitland Parkway and MLK Avenue would enhance regional and local multi-modal mobility, allowing local streets to serve local traffic. Ongoing economic development activities related to new housing, employment, and recreation opportunities would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction impacts would include: travel pattern modifications for all modes of transportation; access changes; increased travel time; impacts to on-street parking; road closings; and temporary increases in noise levels, fugitive dust, and mobile source emissions. Right-of-way requirements would displace four commercial businesses. Nineteen hazardous waste sites would be encountered by construction workers and it is anticipated that some risk of subsurface contamination exists throughout the proposed construction area. Two historic resources, Suitland Parkway and the Plan of the City of Washington, would be adversely affected, but impacts would be mitigated. 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.), 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 08-0202D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110099, Final EIS--645 pages, Comments (Appendix 1)--475 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-DC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Urban Renewal KW - Anacostia River KW - District of Columbia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16367567?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Hydrodynamics and sediment-transport in the nearshore of Poverty Bay, New Zealand; observations of nearshore sediment segregation and oceanic storms AN - 898160482; 2011-087250 AB - Nearshore regions act as an interface between the terrestrial environment and deeper waters. As such, they play important roles in the dispersal of fluvial sediment and the transport of sand to and from the shoreline. This study focused on the nearshore of Poverty Bay, New Zealand, and the processes controlling the dispersal of sediment from the main source, the Waipaoa River. Hydrodynamics and sediment-transport in water shallower than 15 m were observed from April through mid-September 2006. This deployment afforded observations during 3-4 periods of elevated river discharge and 5 dry storms. Similar wind, river discharge, wave, current, and turbidity patterns were characterized during three of the wet storms. At the beginning of each event, winds blew shoreward, increasing wave heights to 2-3 m within Poverty Bay. As the cyclonic storms moved through the system the winds reversed direction and became seaward, reducing the local wave height and orbital velocity while river discharge remained elevated. At these times, high river discharge and relatively small waves enabled fluvially derived suspended sediment to deposit in shallow water. Altimetry measurements indicated that at least 7 cm was deposited at a 15 m deep site during a single discharge event. Turbidity and seabed observations showed this deposition to be removed, however, as large swell waves from the Southern Ocean triggered resuspension of the material within three weeks of deposition. Consequently, two periods of dispersal were associated with each discharge pulse, one coinciding with fluvial delivery, and a second driven by wave resuspension a few weeks later. These observations of nearfield sediment deposition contradict current hypotheses of very limited sediment deposition in shallow water offshore of small mountainous rivers when floods and high-energy, large wave and fast current, oceanic conditions coincide. Consistently shoreward near-bed currents, observed along the 10 m isobath of Poverty Bay, were attributed to a combination of estuarine circulation, Stokes drift, and wind driven upwelling. Velocities measured at the 15 m isobath, however, were directed more alongshore and diverged from those at the 10 m isobath. The divergence in the currents observed at the 10 and 15 m locations seemed to facilitate segregation of coarse and fine sediment, with sand transported near-bed toward the beach, while suspended silts and clays were exported to deeper water. JF - Continental Shelf Research AU - Bever, Aaron J AU - McNinch, Jesse E AU - Harris, Courtney K Y1 - 2011/04// PY - 2011 DA - April 2011 SP - 507 EP - 526 PB - Elsevier, Oxford VL - 31 IS - 6 SN - 0278-4343, 0278-4343 KW - Southwest Pacific KW - stream sediments KW - shear stress KW - nearshore sedimentation KW - North Island KW - marine sedimentation KW - West Pacific KW - transport KW - Poverty Bay KW - sediments KW - velocity KW - hydrodynamics KW - storms KW - currents KW - bedload KW - Australasia KW - sediment transport KW - sedimentation KW - South Pacific KW - Waipaoa River KW - Pacific Ocean KW - ocean waves KW - turbidity KW - continental shelf KW - acoustic Doppler current profiler data KW - coastal sedimentation KW - New Zealand KW - 07:Oceanography UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898160482?accountid=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=Continental+Shelf+Research&rft.atitle=Hydrodynamics+and+sediment-transport+in+the+nearshore+of+Poverty+Bay%2C+New+Zealand%3B+observations+of+nearshore+sediment+segregation+and+oceanic+storms&rft.au=Bever%2C+Aaron+J%3BMcNinch%2C+Jesse+E%3BHarris%2C+Courtney+K&rft.aulast=Bever&rft.aufirst=Aaron&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=31&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=507&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Continental+Shelf+Research&rft.issn=02784343&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.csr.2010.12.007 L2 - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02784343 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 - 2011-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 79 N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. sketch map N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - CSHRDZ N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - acoustic Doppler current profiler data; Australasia; bedload; coastal sedimentation; continental shelf; currents; hydrodynamics; marine sedimentation; nearshore sedimentation; New Zealand; North Island; ocean waves; Pacific Ocean; Poverty Bay; sediment transport; sedimentation; sediments; shear stress; South Pacific; Southwest Pacific; storms; stream sediments; transport; turbidity; velocity; Waipaoa River; West Pacific DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.csr.2010.12.007 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Acoustic Identification of Bats in the Eastern United States: A Comparison of Parametric and Nonparametric Methods AN - 893272706; 14956032 AB - Ultrasonic detectors are widely used to survey bats in ecological studies. To evaluate efficacy of acoustic identification, we compiled a library of search phase calls from across the eastern United States using the Anabat system. The call library included 1,846 call sequences of 12 species recorded from 14 states. We determined accuracy rates using 3 parametric and 4 nonparametric classification functions for acoustic identification. The 2 most flexible classification functions also were the most accurate: neural networks (overall classification accuracy = 0.94) and mixture discriminant analysis incorporating an adaptive regression model (overall classification accuracy = 0.93). Flexible nonparametric methods offer substantial benefits when discriminating among closely related species and may preclude the need to group species with similar calls. We demonstrate that quantitative methods provide an effective technique to acoustically identify bats in the eastern United States with known accuracy rates. JF - Journal of Wildlife Management AU - Britzke, Eric R AU - Duchamp, Joseph E AU - Murray, Kevin L AU - Swihart, Robert K AU - Robbins, Lynn W Y1 - 2011/04// PY - 2011 DA - Apr 2011 SP - 660 EP - 667 PB - Wildlife Society, 5410 Grosvenor Lane Bethesda MD 20814-2197 USA VL - 75 IS - 3 SN - 0022-541X, 0022-541X KW - Ecology Abstracts KW - Acoustics KW - Classification KW - Models KW - Neural networks KW - Regression analysis KW - Ultrasonics KW - Vocalization behavior KW - Wildlife management KW - D 04060:Management and Conservation UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/893272706?accountid=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+Wildlife+Management&rft.atitle=Acoustic+Identification+of+Bats+in+the+Eastern+United+States%3A+A+Comparison+of+Parametric+and+Nonparametric+Methods&rft.au=Britzke%2C+Eric+R%3BDuchamp%2C+Joseph+E%3BMurray%2C+Kevin+L%3BSwihart%2C+Robert+K%3BRobbins%2C+Lynn+W&rft.aulast=Britzke&rft.aufirst=Eric&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=75&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=660&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Wildlife+Management&rft.issn=0022541X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002%2Fjwmg.68 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - Number of references - 4 N1 - Last updated - 2013-04-19 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Wildlife management; Vocalization behavior; Classification; Neural networks; Ultrasonics; Acoustics; Regression analysis; Models DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.68 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - The Role of Nonlinear Momentum Fluxes on the Evolution of Directional Wind-Wave Spectra AN - 883028097; 15294917 AB - It has long been known that nonlinear wave-wave interactions produce stationary solutions related to constant energy flux through the equilibrium range when a deep-water spectrum follows an f super(-4) form, as has been verified in numerical studies in which spectra follow a constant angular spreading distribution. This paper shows that, although energy fluxes through such spectra remain essentially constant, momentum fluxes do not. On the other hand, if the angular distribution of a spectrum is allowed to behave in a manner consistent with observations, both the energy flux and the momentum flux tend to remain constant through a major portion of the spectrum. Thus, it appears that directional distributions of energy within wind-wave spectra adjust to a form consistent with nondivergent nonlinear fluxes, suggesting that these fluxes likely play a very prominent role in the evolution of directional spectra during wave generation. JF - Journal of Physical Oceanography AU - Resio, Donald T AU - Long, Charles E AU - Perrie, William AD - U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS 39180, USA, donald.t.resio@usace.army.mil Y1 - 2011/04// PY - 2011 DA - Apr 2011 SP - 781 EP - 801 PB - American Meteorological Society, 45 Beacon St. Boston MA 02108-3693 United States VL - 41 IS - 4 SN - 0022-3670, 0022-3670 KW - ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts; Oceanic Abstracts KW - Marine KW - Angular distribution KW - Directional spectra KW - Energy flux KW - Oceanography KW - Wind-wave spectra KW - Equilibrium KW - Energy transfer KW - Wave-wave interaction KW - Waves KW - Momentum flux KW - Wave generation KW - Fluctuations KW - Momentum transfer KW - Evolution KW - O 2010:Physical Oceanography KW - M2 551.46:General (551.46) KW - SW 0540:Properties of water KW - Q2 09162:Methods and instruments UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/883028097?accountid=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+Physical+Oceanography&rft.atitle=The+Role+of+Nonlinear+Momentum+Fluxes+on+the+Evolution+of+Directional+Wind-Wave+Spectra&rft.au=Resio%2C+Donald+T%3BLong%2C+Charles+E%3BPerrie%2C+William&rft.aulast=Resio&rft.aufirst=Donald&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=41&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=781&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Physical+Oceanography&rft.issn=00223670&rft_id=info:doi/10.1175%2F2010JPO4545.1 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-01 N1 - Number of references - 48 N1 - Last updated - 2014-05-02 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Angular distribution; Directional spectra; Energy transfer; Wave-wave interaction; Wave generation; Momentum transfer; Energy flux; Momentum flux; Wind-wave spectra; Equilibrium; Waves; Oceanography; Fluctuations; Evolution; Marine DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/2010JPO4545.1 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 86 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868224578; 14851-5_0086 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 86 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868224578?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 85 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868224572; 14851-5_0085 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 85 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868224572?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 84 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868224565; 14851-5_0084 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 84 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868224565?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 83 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868224557; 14851-5_0083 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 83 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868224557?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 82 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868224549; 14851-5_0082 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 82 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868224549?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 81 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868224542; 14851-5_0081 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 81 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868224542?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 80 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868224533; 14851-5_0080 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 80 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868224533?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 79 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868224526; 14851-5_0079 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 79 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868224526?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 78 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868224520; 14851-5_0078 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 78 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868224520?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 77 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868224516; 14851-5_0077 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 77 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868224516?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 76 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868224509; 14851-5_0076 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 76 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868224509?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 75 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868224505; 14851-5_0075 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 75 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868224505?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 72 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868224498; 14851-5_0072 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 72 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868224498?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 71 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868224490; 14851-5_0071 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 71 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868224490?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 70 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868224485; 14851-5_0070 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 70 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868224485?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 69 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868224478; 14851-5_0069 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 69 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868224478?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 66 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868224476; 14851-5_0066 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 66 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868224476?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 2 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868224475; 14851-5_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868224475?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 1 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868224473; 14851-5_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868224473?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. [Part 61 of 61] T2 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. AN - 868224394; 14852-6_0061 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 30 to 45 miles of rail line between the Port MacKenzie District in Matanuska-Susitna Borough and a point just north of Willow, Alaska are proposed. On December 5, 2008, the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) filed a petition for the Port MacKenzie rail extension to provide freight services between the deep-water port and Interior Alaska. Port MacKenzie is situated on nearly 9,000 acres of land and has an existing dockside bulk materials loading capacity with a conveyor system. Unlike similar port facilities that serve large, ocean-going vehicles, Port MacKenzie does not have rail service. Under the proposed action, ARRC would construct and operate a single-track rail line with a right-of-way (ROW) of 200 feet which would contain a power line, buried utility lines, and an access road. In addition, ARRC would construct one rail line siding within the exiting main line ROW at the tie-in location with the rail extension. The rail line would be constructed and maintained to Class 4 standards with a 60-mile-per-hour operating speed for freight service. Operations support facilities would be constructed and a terminal reserve area along the southern terminus of the line would eventually consist of yard sidings, storage areas, and a terminal building to support train maintenance. This final EIS considers 12 action alternatives based on two southern, three northern, and three connector segments. A No-Action Alternative is also considered. The environmentally preferred alternative is the Mac East Variant-Connector 3 Variant-Houston-Houston South Alternative. This alternative is located in an area of flat topography and would have a comparatively low level of potential impacts to most resources. The Mac East Variant Segment would begin in the terminal reserve area and would proceed north along the east side of the Point MacKenzie Agricultural Project before its junction with the Connector 3 Variant segment. The 5.47-mile-long connector segment would shift to the west and would cross Ayrshire Avenue and Farmers Road before continuing north of My Lake and crossing an adjacent ravine. From the Connector 3 Variant segment, the Houston Segment would proceed northeast, traveling through slightly undulating terrain with areas of wetland. The segment would pass between Papoose Twins and Crooked lakes, crossing an area of hilly terrain. The remaining four miles of the Houston Segment would be in a gradually rising wetland area to a point near Muleshoe and Little Horseshoe lakes, where it would connect to the Houston South Segment. This segment would traverse northeast, passing just west of Pear Lake and would tie into the existing main line near mile post 174.0 without crossing Parks Highway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve efficiency for freight shipping between Port MacKenzie and Interior Alaska and result in a temporary stimulus to the local economy and labor market with an estimated 66 to 100 workers added over a two-year construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the preferred alternative would involve crossings of floodplains, 19 culverts, two culvert extensions, two drainage structures, and two bridges. Culvert and bridge construction could degrade riparian areas with consequent loss of fish habitat, increase stages and velocities of floodwater, increase channel scour and downstream sedimentation, and change natural drainage. Other impacts would include: loss of 164 acres of wetlands; loss of 652 acres of wildlife habitat, including 223 acres of moose foraging habitat; long-term impact to forest communities; and potential impacts to 23 cultural resources. The Connector 3 segment would displace two structures. Seismic activity could misalign or damage tracks, the railbed, or the access road. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0148D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110096, Final EIS--943 pages, Appendices--1,066 pages, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 61 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Floodplains KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska 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/868224394?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. [Part 60 of 61] T2 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. AN - 868224390; 14852-6_0060 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 30 to 45 miles of rail line between the Port MacKenzie District in Matanuska-Susitna Borough and a point just north of Willow, Alaska are proposed. On December 5, 2008, the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) filed a petition for the Port MacKenzie rail extension to provide freight services between the deep-water port and Interior Alaska. Port MacKenzie is situated on nearly 9,000 acres of land and has an existing dockside bulk materials loading capacity with a conveyor system. Unlike similar port facilities that serve large, ocean-going vehicles, Port MacKenzie does not have rail service. Under the proposed action, ARRC would construct and operate a single-track rail line with a right-of-way (ROW) of 200 feet which would contain a power line, buried utility lines, and an access road. In addition, ARRC would construct one rail line siding within the exiting main line ROW at the tie-in location with the rail extension. The rail line would be constructed and maintained to Class 4 standards with a 60-mile-per-hour operating speed for freight service. Operations support facilities would be constructed and a terminal reserve area along the southern terminus of the line would eventually consist of yard sidings, storage areas, and a terminal building to support train maintenance. This final EIS considers 12 action alternatives based on two southern, three northern, and three connector segments. A No-Action Alternative is also considered. The environmentally preferred alternative is the Mac East Variant-Connector 3 Variant-Houston-Houston South Alternative. This alternative is located in an area of flat topography and would have a comparatively low level of potential impacts to most resources. The Mac East Variant Segment would begin in the terminal reserve area and would proceed north along the east side of the Point MacKenzie Agricultural Project before its junction with the Connector 3 Variant segment. The 5.47-mile-long connector segment would shift to the west and would cross Ayrshire Avenue and Farmers Road before continuing north of My Lake and crossing an adjacent ravine. From the Connector 3 Variant segment, the Houston Segment would proceed northeast, traveling through slightly undulating terrain with areas of wetland. The segment would pass between Papoose Twins and Crooked lakes, crossing an area of hilly terrain. The remaining four miles of the Houston Segment would be in a gradually rising wetland area to a point near Muleshoe and Little Horseshoe lakes, where it would connect to the Houston South Segment. This segment would traverse northeast, passing just west of Pear Lake and would tie into the existing main line near mile post 174.0 without crossing Parks Highway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve efficiency for freight shipping between Port MacKenzie and Interior Alaska and result in a temporary stimulus to the local economy and labor market with an estimated 66 to 100 workers added over a two-year construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the preferred alternative would involve crossings of floodplains, 19 culverts, two culvert extensions, two drainage structures, and two bridges. Culvert and bridge construction could degrade riparian areas with consequent loss of fish habitat, increase stages and velocities of floodwater, increase channel scour and downstream sedimentation, and change natural drainage. Other impacts would include: loss of 164 acres of wetlands; loss of 652 acres of wildlife habitat, including 223 acres of moose foraging habitat; long-term impact to forest communities; and potential impacts to 23 cultural resources. The Connector 3 segment would displace two structures. Seismic activity could misalign or damage tracks, the railbed, or the access road. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0148D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110096, Final EIS--943 pages, Appendices--1,066 pages, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 60 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Floodplains KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska 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/868224390?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. [Part 59 of 61] T2 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. AN - 868224387; 14852-6_0059 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 30 to 45 miles of rail line between the Port MacKenzie District in Matanuska-Susitna Borough and a point just north of Willow, Alaska are proposed. On December 5, 2008, the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) filed a petition for the Port MacKenzie rail extension to provide freight services between the deep-water port and Interior Alaska. Port MacKenzie is situated on nearly 9,000 acres of land and has an existing dockside bulk materials loading capacity with a conveyor system. Unlike similar port facilities that serve large, ocean-going vehicles, Port MacKenzie does not have rail service. Under the proposed action, ARRC would construct and operate a single-track rail line with a right-of-way (ROW) of 200 feet which would contain a power line, buried utility lines, and an access road. In addition, ARRC would construct one rail line siding within the exiting main line ROW at the tie-in location with the rail extension. The rail line would be constructed and maintained to Class 4 standards with a 60-mile-per-hour operating speed for freight service. Operations support facilities would be constructed and a terminal reserve area along the southern terminus of the line would eventually consist of yard sidings, storage areas, and a terminal building to support train maintenance. This final EIS considers 12 action alternatives based on two southern, three northern, and three connector segments. A No-Action Alternative is also considered. The environmentally preferred alternative is the Mac East Variant-Connector 3 Variant-Houston-Houston South Alternative. This alternative is located in an area of flat topography and would have a comparatively low level of potential impacts to most resources. The Mac East Variant Segment would begin in the terminal reserve area and would proceed north along the east side of the Point MacKenzie Agricultural Project before its junction with the Connector 3 Variant segment. The 5.47-mile-long connector segment would shift to the west and would cross Ayrshire Avenue and Farmers Road before continuing north of My Lake and crossing an adjacent ravine. From the Connector 3 Variant segment, the Houston Segment would proceed northeast, traveling through slightly undulating terrain with areas of wetland. The segment would pass between Papoose Twins and Crooked lakes, crossing an area of hilly terrain. The remaining four miles of the Houston Segment would be in a gradually rising wetland area to a point near Muleshoe and Little Horseshoe lakes, where it would connect to the Houston South Segment. This segment would traverse northeast, passing just west of Pear Lake and would tie into the existing main line near mile post 174.0 without crossing Parks Highway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve efficiency for freight shipping between Port MacKenzie and Interior Alaska and result in a temporary stimulus to the local economy and labor market with an estimated 66 to 100 workers added over a two-year construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the preferred alternative would involve crossings of floodplains, 19 culverts, two culvert extensions, two drainage structures, and two bridges. Culvert and bridge construction could degrade riparian areas with consequent loss of fish habitat, increase stages and velocities of floodwater, increase channel scour and downstream sedimentation, and change natural drainage. Other impacts would include: loss of 164 acres of wetlands; loss of 652 acres of wildlife habitat, including 223 acres of moose foraging habitat; long-term impact to forest communities; and potential impacts to 23 cultural resources. The Connector 3 segment would displace two structures. Seismic activity could misalign or damage tracks, the railbed, or the access road. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0148D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110096, Final EIS--943 pages, Appendices--1,066 pages, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 59 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Floodplains KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska 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/868224387?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. [Part 58 of 61] T2 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. AN - 868224383; 14852-6_0058 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 30 to 45 miles of rail line between the Port MacKenzie District in Matanuska-Susitna Borough and a point just north of Willow, Alaska are proposed. On December 5, 2008, the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) filed a petition for the Port MacKenzie rail extension to provide freight services between the deep-water port and Interior Alaska. Port MacKenzie is situated on nearly 9,000 acres of land and has an existing dockside bulk materials loading capacity with a conveyor system. Unlike similar port facilities that serve large, ocean-going vehicles, Port MacKenzie does not have rail service. Under the proposed action, ARRC would construct and operate a single-track rail line with a right-of-way (ROW) of 200 feet which would contain a power line, buried utility lines, and an access road. In addition, ARRC would construct one rail line siding within the exiting main line ROW at the tie-in location with the rail extension. The rail line would be constructed and maintained to Class 4 standards with a 60-mile-per-hour operating speed for freight service. Operations support facilities would be constructed and a terminal reserve area along the southern terminus of the line would eventually consist of yard sidings, storage areas, and a terminal building to support train maintenance. This final EIS considers 12 action alternatives based on two southern, three northern, and three connector segments. A No-Action Alternative is also considered. The environmentally preferred alternative is the Mac East Variant-Connector 3 Variant-Houston-Houston South Alternative. This alternative is located in an area of flat topography and would have a comparatively low level of potential impacts to most resources. The Mac East Variant Segment would begin in the terminal reserve area and would proceed north along the east side of the Point MacKenzie Agricultural Project before its junction with the Connector 3 Variant segment. The 5.47-mile-long connector segment would shift to the west and would cross Ayrshire Avenue and Farmers Road before continuing north of My Lake and crossing an adjacent ravine. From the Connector 3 Variant segment, the Houston Segment would proceed northeast, traveling through slightly undulating terrain with areas of wetland. The segment would pass between Papoose Twins and Crooked lakes, crossing an area of hilly terrain. The remaining four miles of the Houston Segment would be in a gradually rising wetland area to a point near Muleshoe and Little Horseshoe lakes, where it would connect to the Houston South Segment. This segment would traverse northeast, passing just west of Pear Lake and would tie into the existing main line near mile post 174.0 without crossing Parks Highway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve efficiency for freight shipping between Port MacKenzie and Interior Alaska and result in a temporary stimulus to the local economy and labor market with an estimated 66 to 100 workers added over a two-year construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the preferred alternative would involve crossings of floodplains, 19 culverts, two culvert extensions, two drainage structures, and two bridges. Culvert and bridge construction could degrade riparian areas with consequent loss of fish habitat, increase stages and velocities of floodwater, increase channel scour and downstream sedimentation, and change natural drainage. Other impacts would include: loss of 164 acres of wetlands; loss of 652 acres of wildlife habitat, including 223 acres of moose foraging habitat; long-term impact to forest communities; and potential impacts to 23 cultural resources. The Connector 3 segment would displace two structures. Seismic activity could misalign or damage tracks, the railbed, or the access road. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0148D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110096, Final EIS--943 pages, Appendices--1,066 pages, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 58 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Floodplains KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska 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/868224383?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. [Part 57 of 61] T2 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. AN - 868224379; 14852-6_0057 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 30 to 45 miles of rail line between the Port MacKenzie District in Matanuska-Susitna Borough and a point just north of Willow, Alaska are proposed. On December 5, 2008, the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) filed a petition for the Port MacKenzie rail extension to provide freight services between the deep-water port and Interior Alaska. Port MacKenzie is situated on nearly 9,000 acres of land and has an existing dockside bulk materials loading capacity with a conveyor system. Unlike similar port facilities that serve large, ocean-going vehicles, Port MacKenzie does not have rail service. Under the proposed action, ARRC would construct and operate a single-track rail line with a right-of-way (ROW) of 200 feet which would contain a power line, buried utility lines, and an access road. In addition, ARRC would construct one rail line siding within the exiting main line ROW at the tie-in location with the rail extension. The rail line would be constructed and maintained to Class 4 standards with a 60-mile-per-hour operating speed for freight service. Operations support facilities would be constructed and a terminal reserve area along the southern terminus of the line would eventually consist of yard sidings, storage areas, and a terminal building to support train maintenance. This final EIS considers 12 action alternatives based on two southern, three northern, and three connector segments. A No-Action Alternative is also considered. The environmentally preferred alternative is the Mac East Variant-Connector 3 Variant-Houston-Houston South Alternative. This alternative is located in an area of flat topography and would have a comparatively low level of potential impacts to most resources. The Mac East Variant Segment would begin in the terminal reserve area and would proceed north along the east side of the Point MacKenzie Agricultural Project before its junction with the Connector 3 Variant segment. The 5.47-mile-long connector segment would shift to the west and would cross Ayrshire Avenue and Farmers Road before continuing north of My Lake and crossing an adjacent ravine. From the Connector 3 Variant segment, the Houston Segment would proceed northeast, traveling through slightly undulating terrain with areas of wetland. The segment would pass between Papoose Twins and Crooked lakes, crossing an area of hilly terrain. The remaining four miles of the Houston Segment would be in a gradually rising wetland area to a point near Muleshoe and Little Horseshoe lakes, where it would connect to the Houston South Segment. This segment would traverse northeast, passing just west of Pear Lake and would tie into the existing main line near mile post 174.0 without crossing Parks Highway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve efficiency for freight shipping between Port MacKenzie and Interior Alaska and result in a temporary stimulus to the local economy and labor market with an estimated 66 to 100 workers added over a two-year construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the preferred alternative would involve crossings of floodplains, 19 culverts, two culvert extensions, two drainage structures, and two bridges. Culvert and bridge construction could degrade riparian areas with consequent loss of fish habitat, increase stages and velocities of floodwater, increase channel scour and downstream sedimentation, and change natural drainage. Other impacts would include: loss of 164 acres of wetlands; loss of 652 acres of wildlife habitat, including 223 acres of moose foraging habitat; long-term impact to forest communities; and potential impacts to 23 cultural resources. The Connector 3 segment would displace two structures. Seismic activity could misalign or damage tracks, the railbed, or the access road. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0148D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110096, Final EIS--943 pages, Appendices--1,066 pages, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 57 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Floodplains KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska 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/868224379?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. [Part 56 of 61] T2 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. AN - 868224375; 14852-6_0056 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 30 to 45 miles of rail line between the Port MacKenzie District in Matanuska-Susitna Borough and a point just north of Willow, Alaska are proposed. On December 5, 2008, the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) filed a petition for the Port MacKenzie rail extension to provide freight services between the deep-water port and Interior Alaska. Port MacKenzie is situated on nearly 9,000 acres of land and has an existing dockside bulk materials loading capacity with a conveyor system. Unlike similar port facilities that serve large, ocean-going vehicles, Port MacKenzie does not have rail service. Under the proposed action, ARRC would construct and operate a single-track rail line with a right-of-way (ROW) of 200 feet which would contain a power line, buried utility lines, and an access road. In addition, ARRC would construct one rail line siding within the exiting main line ROW at the tie-in location with the rail extension. The rail line would be constructed and maintained to Class 4 standards with a 60-mile-per-hour operating speed for freight service. Operations support facilities would be constructed and a terminal reserve area along the southern terminus of the line would eventually consist of yard sidings, storage areas, and a terminal building to support train maintenance. This final EIS considers 12 action alternatives based on two southern, three northern, and three connector segments. A No-Action Alternative is also considered. The environmentally preferred alternative is the Mac East Variant-Connector 3 Variant-Houston-Houston South Alternative. This alternative is located in an area of flat topography and would have a comparatively low level of potential impacts to most resources. The Mac East Variant Segment would begin in the terminal reserve area and would proceed north along the east side of the Point MacKenzie Agricultural Project before its junction with the Connector 3 Variant segment. The 5.47-mile-long connector segment would shift to the west and would cross Ayrshire Avenue and Farmers Road before continuing north of My Lake and crossing an adjacent ravine. From the Connector 3 Variant segment, the Houston Segment would proceed northeast, traveling through slightly undulating terrain with areas of wetland. The segment would pass between Papoose Twins and Crooked lakes, crossing an area of hilly terrain. The remaining four miles of the Houston Segment would be in a gradually rising wetland area to a point near Muleshoe and Little Horseshoe lakes, where it would connect to the Houston South Segment. This segment would traverse northeast, passing just west of Pear Lake and would tie into the existing main line near mile post 174.0 without crossing Parks Highway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve efficiency for freight shipping between Port MacKenzie and Interior Alaska and result in a temporary stimulus to the local economy and labor market with an estimated 66 to 100 workers added over a two-year construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the preferred alternative would involve crossings of floodplains, 19 culverts, two culvert extensions, two drainage structures, and two bridges. Culvert and bridge construction could degrade riparian areas with consequent loss of fish habitat, increase stages and velocities of floodwater, increase channel scour and downstream sedimentation, and change natural drainage. Other impacts would include: loss of 164 acres of wetlands; loss of 652 acres of wildlife habitat, including 223 acres of moose foraging habitat; long-term impact to forest communities; and potential impacts to 23 cultural resources. The Connector 3 segment would displace two structures. Seismic activity could misalign or damage tracks, the railbed, or the access road. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0148D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110096, Final EIS--943 pages, Appendices--1,066 pages, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 56 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Floodplains KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska 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/868224375?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 57 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868224359; 14851-5_0057 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 57 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868224359?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 56 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868224355; 14851-5_0056 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 56 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868224355?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 54 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868224354; 14851-5_0054 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 54 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868224354?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 55 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868224351; 14851-5_0055 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 55 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868224351?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 53 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868224350; 14851-5_0053 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 53 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868224350?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 49 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868224343; 14851-5_0049 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 49 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868224343?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 52 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868224339; 14851-5_0052 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 52 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868224339?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 51 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868224327; 14851-5_0051 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 51 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868224327?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 47 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868224321; 14851-5_0047 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 47 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868224321?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. [Part 54 of 61] T2 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. AN - 868224315; 14852-6_0054 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 30 to 45 miles of rail line between the Port MacKenzie District in Matanuska-Susitna Borough and a point just north of Willow, Alaska are proposed. On December 5, 2008, the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) filed a petition for the Port MacKenzie rail extension to provide freight services between the deep-water port and Interior Alaska. Port MacKenzie is situated on nearly 9,000 acres of land and has an existing dockside bulk materials loading capacity with a conveyor system. Unlike similar port facilities that serve large, ocean-going vehicles, Port MacKenzie does not have rail service. Under the proposed action, ARRC would construct and operate a single-track rail line with a right-of-way (ROW) of 200 feet which would contain a power line, buried utility lines, and an access road. In addition, ARRC would construct one rail line siding within the exiting main line ROW at the tie-in location with the rail extension. The rail line would be constructed and maintained to Class 4 standards with a 60-mile-per-hour operating speed for freight service. Operations support facilities would be constructed and a terminal reserve area along the southern terminus of the line would eventually consist of yard sidings, storage areas, and a terminal building to support train maintenance. This final EIS considers 12 action alternatives based on two southern, three northern, and three connector segments. A No-Action Alternative is also considered. The environmentally preferred alternative is the Mac East Variant-Connector 3 Variant-Houston-Houston South Alternative. This alternative is located in an area of flat topography and would have a comparatively low level of potential impacts to most resources. The Mac East Variant Segment would begin in the terminal reserve area and would proceed north along the east side of the Point MacKenzie Agricultural Project before its junction with the Connector 3 Variant segment. The 5.47-mile-long connector segment would shift to the west and would cross Ayrshire Avenue and Farmers Road before continuing north of My Lake and crossing an adjacent ravine. From the Connector 3 Variant segment, the Houston Segment would proceed northeast, traveling through slightly undulating terrain with areas of wetland. The segment would pass between Papoose Twins and Crooked lakes, crossing an area of hilly terrain. The remaining four miles of the Houston Segment would be in a gradually rising wetland area to a point near Muleshoe and Little Horseshoe lakes, where it would connect to the Houston South Segment. This segment would traverse northeast, passing just west of Pear Lake and would tie into the existing main line near mile post 174.0 without crossing Parks Highway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve efficiency for freight shipping between Port MacKenzie and Interior Alaska and result in a temporary stimulus to the local economy and labor market with an estimated 66 to 100 workers added over a two-year construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the preferred alternative would involve crossings of floodplains, 19 culverts, two culvert extensions, two drainage structures, and two bridges. Culvert and bridge construction could degrade riparian areas with consequent loss of fish habitat, increase stages and velocities of floodwater, increase channel scour and downstream sedimentation, and change natural drainage. Other impacts would include: loss of 164 acres of wetlands; loss of 652 acres of wildlife habitat, including 223 acres of moose foraging habitat; long-term impact to forest communities; and potential impacts to 23 cultural resources. The Connector 3 segment would displace two structures. Seismic activity could misalign or damage tracks, the railbed, or the access road. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0148D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110096, Final EIS--943 pages, Appendices--1,066 pages, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 54 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Floodplains KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska 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/868224315?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 33 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868224312; 14851-5_0033 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 33 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868224312?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 46 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868224311; 14851-5_0046 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 46 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868224311?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. [Part 53 of 61] T2 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. AN - 868224309; 14852-6_0053 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 30 to 45 miles of rail line between the Port MacKenzie District in Matanuska-Susitna Borough and a point just north of Willow, Alaska are proposed. On December 5, 2008, the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) filed a petition for the Port MacKenzie rail extension to provide freight services between the deep-water port and Interior Alaska. Port MacKenzie is situated on nearly 9,000 acres of land and has an existing dockside bulk materials loading capacity with a conveyor system. Unlike similar port facilities that serve large, ocean-going vehicles, Port MacKenzie does not have rail service. Under the proposed action, ARRC would construct and operate a single-track rail line with a right-of-way (ROW) of 200 feet which would contain a power line, buried utility lines, and an access road. In addition, ARRC would construct one rail line siding within the exiting main line ROW at the tie-in location with the rail extension. The rail line would be constructed and maintained to Class 4 standards with a 60-mile-per-hour operating speed for freight service. Operations support facilities would be constructed and a terminal reserve area along the southern terminus of the line would eventually consist of yard sidings, storage areas, and a terminal building to support train maintenance. This final EIS considers 12 action alternatives based on two southern, three northern, and three connector segments. A No-Action Alternative is also considered. The environmentally preferred alternative is the Mac East Variant-Connector 3 Variant-Houston-Houston South Alternative. This alternative is located in an area of flat topography and would have a comparatively low level of potential impacts to most resources. The Mac East Variant Segment would begin in the terminal reserve area and would proceed north along the east side of the Point MacKenzie Agricultural Project before its junction with the Connector 3 Variant segment. The 5.47-mile-long connector segment would shift to the west and would cross Ayrshire Avenue and Farmers Road before continuing north of My Lake and crossing an adjacent ravine. From the Connector 3 Variant segment, the Houston Segment would proceed northeast, traveling through slightly undulating terrain with areas of wetland. The segment would pass between Papoose Twins and Crooked lakes, crossing an area of hilly terrain. The remaining four miles of the Houston Segment would be in a gradually rising wetland area to a point near Muleshoe and Little Horseshoe lakes, where it would connect to the Houston South Segment. This segment would traverse northeast, passing just west of Pear Lake and would tie into the existing main line near mile post 174.0 without crossing Parks Highway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve efficiency for freight shipping between Port MacKenzie and Interior Alaska and result in a temporary stimulus to the local economy and labor market with an estimated 66 to 100 workers added over a two-year construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the preferred alternative would involve crossings of floodplains, 19 culverts, two culvert extensions, two drainage structures, and two bridges. Culvert and bridge construction could degrade riparian areas with consequent loss of fish habitat, increase stages and velocities of floodwater, increase channel scour and downstream sedimentation, and change natural drainage. Other impacts would include: loss of 164 acres of wetlands; loss of 652 acres of wildlife habitat, including 223 acres of moose foraging habitat; long-term impact to forest communities; and potential impacts to 23 cultural resources. The Connector 3 segment would displace two structures. Seismic activity could misalign or damage tracks, the railbed, or the access road. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0148D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110096, Final EIS--943 pages, Appendices--1,066 pages, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 53 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Floodplains KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska 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/868224309?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 32 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868224306; 14851-5_0032 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 32 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868224306?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. [Part 52 of 61] T2 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. AN - 868224305; 14852-6_0052 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 30 to 45 miles of rail line between the Port MacKenzie District in Matanuska-Susitna Borough and a point just north of Willow, Alaska are proposed. On December 5, 2008, the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) filed a petition for the Port MacKenzie rail extension to provide freight services between the deep-water port and Interior Alaska. Port MacKenzie is situated on nearly 9,000 acres of land and has an existing dockside bulk materials loading capacity with a conveyor system. Unlike similar port facilities that serve large, ocean-going vehicles, Port MacKenzie does not have rail service. Under the proposed action, ARRC would construct and operate a single-track rail line with a right-of-way (ROW) of 200 feet which would contain a power line, buried utility lines, and an access road. In addition, ARRC would construct one rail line siding within the exiting main line ROW at the tie-in location with the rail extension. The rail line would be constructed and maintained to Class 4 standards with a 60-mile-per-hour operating speed for freight service. Operations support facilities would be constructed and a terminal reserve area along the southern terminus of the line would eventually consist of yard sidings, storage areas, and a terminal building to support train maintenance. This final EIS considers 12 action alternatives based on two southern, three northern, and three connector segments. A No-Action Alternative is also considered. The environmentally preferred alternative is the Mac East Variant-Connector 3 Variant-Houston-Houston South Alternative. This alternative is located in an area of flat topography and would have a comparatively low level of potential impacts to most resources. The Mac East Variant Segment would begin in the terminal reserve area and would proceed north along the east side of the Point MacKenzie Agricultural Project before its junction with the Connector 3 Variant segment. The 5.47-mile-long connector segment would shift to the west and would cross Ayrshire Avenue and Farmers Road before continuing north of My Lake and crossing an adjacent ravine. From the Connector 3 Variant segment, the Houston Segment would proceed northeast, traveling through slightly undulating terrain with areas of wetland. The segment would pass between Papoose Twins and Crooked lakes, crossing an area of hilly terrain. The remaining four miles of the Houston Segment would be in a gradually rising wetland area to a point near Muleshoe and Little Horseshoe lakes, where it would connect to the Houston South Segment. This segment would traverse northeast, passing just west of Pear Lake and would tie into the existing main line near mile post 174.0 without crossing Parks Highway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve efficiency for freight shipping between Port MacKenzie and Interior Alaska and result in a temporary stimulus to the local economy and labor market with an estimated 66 to 100 workers added over a two-year construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the preferred alternative would involve crossings of floodplains, 19 culverts, two culvert extensions, two drainage structures, and two bridges. Culvert and bridge construction could degrade riparian areas with consequent loss of fish habitat, increase stages and velocities of floodwater, increase channel scour and downstream sedimentation, and change natural drainage. Other impacts would include: loss of 164 acres of wetlands; loss of 652 acres of wildlife habitat, including 223 acres of moose foraging habitat; long-term impact to forest communities; and potential impacts to 23 cultural resources. The Connector 3 segment would displace two structures. Seismic activity could misalign or damage tracks, the railbed, or the access road. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0148D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110096, Final EIS--943 pages, Appendices--1,066 pages, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 52 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Floodplains KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska 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/868224305?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 45 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868224303; 14851-5_0045 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 45 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868224303?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 31 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868224300; 14851-5_0031 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 31 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868224300?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. [Part 51 of 61] T2 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. AN - 868224298; 14852-6_0051 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 30 to 45 miles of rail line between the Port MacKenzie District in Matanuska-Susitna Borough and a point just north of Willow, Alaska are proposed. On December 5, 2008, the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) filed a petition for the Port MacKenzie rail extension to provide freight services between the deep-water port and Interior Alaska. Port MacKenzie is situated on nearly 9,000 acres of land and has an existing dockside bulk materials loading capacity with a conveyor system. Unlike similar port facilities that serve large, ocean-going vehicles, Port MacKenzie does not have rail service. Under the proposed action, ARRC would construct and operate a single-track rail line with a right-of-way (ROW) of 200 feet which would contain a power line, buried utility lines, and an access road. In addition, ARRC would construct one rail line siding within the exiting main line ROW at the tie-in location with the rail extension. The rail line would be constructed and maintained to Class 4 standards with a 60-mile-per-hour operating speed for freight service. Operations support facilities would be constructed and a terminal reserve area along the southern terminus of the line would eventually consist of yard sidings, storage areas, and a terminal building to support train maintenance. This final EIS considers 12 action alternatives based on two southern, three northern, and three connector segments. A No-Action Alternative is also considered. The environmentally preferred alternative is the Mac East Variant-Connector 3 Variant-Houston-Houston South Alternative. This alternative is located in an area of flat topography and would have a comparatively low level of potential impacts to most resources. The Mac East Variant Segment would begin in the terminal reserve area and would proceed north along the east side of the Point MacKenzie Agricultural Project before its junction with the Connector 3 Variant segment. The 5.47-mile-long connector segment would shift to the west and would cross Ayrshire Avenue and Farmers Road before continuing north of My Lake and crossing an adjacent ravine. From the Connector 3 Variant segment, the Houston Segment would proceed northeast, traveling through slightly undulating terrain with areas of wetland. The segment would pass between Papoose Twins and Crooked lakes, crossing an area of hilly terrain. The remaining four miles of the Houston Segment would be in a gradually rising wetland area to a point near Muleshoe and Little Horseshoe lakes, where it would connect to the Houston South Segment. This segment would traverse northeast, passing just west of Pear Lake and would tie into the existing main line near mile post 174.0 without crossing Parks Highway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve efficiency for freight shipping between Port MacKenzie and Interior Alaska and result in a temporary stimulus to the local economy and labor market with an estimated 66 to 100 workers added over a two-year construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the preferred alternative would involve crossings of floodplains, 19 culverts, two culvert extensions, two drainage structures, and two bridges. Culvert and bridge construction could degrade riparian areas with consequent loss of fish habitat, increase stages and velocities of floodwater, increase channel scour and downstream sedimentation, and change natural drainage. Other impacts would include: loss of 164 acres of wetlands; loss of 652 acres of wildlife habitat, including 223 acres of moose foraging habitat; long-term impact to forest communities; and potential impacts to 23 cultural resources. The Connector 3 segment would displace two structures. Seismic activity could misalign or damage tracks, the railbed, or the access road. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0148D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110096, Final EIS--943 pages, Appendices--1,066 pages, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 51 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Floodplains KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska 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/868224298?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 44 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868224295; 14851-5_0044 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 44 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868224295?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. [Part 50 of 61] T2 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. AN - 868224292; 14852-6_0050 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 30 to 45 miles of rail line between the Port MacKenzie District in Matanuska-Susitna Borough and a point just north of Willow, Alaska are proposed. On December 5, 2008, the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) filed a petition for the Port MacKenzie rail extension to provide freight services between the deep-water port and Interior Alaska. Port MacKenzie is situated on nearly 9,000 acres of land and has an existing dockside bulk materials loading capacity with a conveyor system. Unlike similar port facilities that serve large, ocean-going vehicles, Port MacKenzie does not have rail service. Under the proposed action, ARRC would construct and operate a single-track rail line with a right-of-way (ROW) of 200 feet which would contain a power line, buried utility lines, and an access road. In addition, ARRC would construct one rail line siding within the exiting main line ROW at the tie-in location with the rail extension. The rail line would be constructed and maintained to Class 4 standards with a 60-mile-per-hour operating speed for freight service. Operations support facilities would be constructed and a terminal reserve area along the southern terminus of the line would eventually consist of yard sidings, storage areas, and a terminal building to support train maintenance. This final EIS considers 12 action alternatives based on two southern, three northern, and three connector segments. A No-Action Alternative is also considered. The environmentally preferred alternative is the Mac East Variant-Connector 3 Variant-Houston-Houston South Alternative. This alternative is located in an area of flat topography and would have a comparatively low level of potential impacts to most resources. The Mac East Variant Segment would begin in the terminal reserve area and would proceed north along the east side of the Point MacKenzie Agricultural Project before its junction with the Connector 3 Variant segment. The 5.47-mile-long connector segment would shift to the west and would cross Ayrshire Avenue and Farmers Road before continuing north of My Lake and crossing an adjacent ravine. From the Connector 3 Variant segment, the Houston Segment would proceed northeast, traveling through slightly undulating terrain with areas of wetland. The segment would pass between Papoose Twins and Crooked lakes, crossing an area of hilly terrain. The remaining four miles of the Houston Segment would be in a gradually rising wetland area to a point near Muleshoe and Little Horseshoe lakes, where it would connect to the Houston South Segment. This segment would traverse northeast, passing just west of Pear Lake and would tie into the existing main line near mile post 174.0 without crossing Parks Highway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve efficiency for freight shipping between Port MacKenzie and Interior Alaska and result in a temporary stimulus to the local economy and labor market with an estimated 66 to 100 workers added over a two-year construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the preferred alternative would involve crossings of floodplains, 19 culverts, two culvert extensions, two drainage structures, and two bridges. Culvert and bridge construction could degrade riparian areas with consequent loss of fish habitat, increase stages and velocities of floodwater, increase channel scour and downstream sedimentation, and change natural drainage. Other impacts would include: loss of 164 acres of wetlands; loss of 652 acres of wildlife habitat, including 223 acres of moose foraging habitat; long-term impact to forest communities; and potential impacts to 23 cultural resources. The Connector 3 segment would displace two structures. Seismic activity could misalign or damage tracks, the railbed, or the access road. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0148D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110096, Final EIS--943 pages, Appendices--1,066 pages, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 50 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Floodplains KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska 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/868224292?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 43 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868224288; 14851-5_0043 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 43 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868224288?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. [Part 49 of 61] T2 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. AN - 868224285; 14852-6_0049 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 30 to 45 miles of rail line between the Port MacKenzie District in Matanuska-Susitna Borough and a point just north of Willow, Alaska are proposed. On December 5, 2008, the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) filed a petition for the Port MacKenzie rail extension to provide freight services between the deep-water port and Interior Alaska. Port MacKenzie is situated on nearly 9,000 acres of land and has an existing dockside bulk materials loading capacity with a conveyor system. Unlike similar port facilities that serve large, ocean-going vehicles, Port MacKenzie does not have rail service. Under the proposed action, ARRC would construct and operate a single-track rail line with a right-of-way (ROW) of 200 feet which would contain a power line, buried utility lines, and an access road. In addition, ARRC would construct one rail line siding within the exiting main line ROW at the tie-in location with the rail extension. The rail line would be constructed and maintained to Class 4 standards with a 60-mile-per-hour operating speed for freight service. Operations support facilities would be constructed and a terminal reserve area along the southern terminus of the line would eventually consist of yard sidings, storage areas, and a terminal building to support train maintenance. This final EIS considers 12 action alternatives based on two southern, three northern, and three connector segments. A No-Action Alternative is also considered. The environmentally preferred alternative is the Mac East Variant-Connector 3 Variant-Houston-Houston South Alternative. This alternative is located in an area of flat topography and would have a comparatively low level of potential impacts to most resources. The Mac East Variant Segment would begin in the terminal reserve area and would proceed north along the east side of the Point MacKenzie Agricultural Project before its junction with the Connector 3 Variant segment. The 5.47-mile-long connector segment would shift to the west and would cross Ayrshire Avenue and Farmers Road before continuing north of My Lake and crossing an adjacent ravine. From the Connector 3 Variant segment, the Houston Segment would proceed northeast, traveling through slightly undulating terrain with areas of wetland. The segment would pass between Papoose Twins and Crooked lakes, crossing an area of hilly terrain. The remaining four miles of the Houston Segment would be in a gradually rising wetland area to a point near Muleshoe and Little Horseshoe lakes, where it would connect to the Houston South Segment. This segment would traverse northeast, passing just west of Pear Lake and would tie into the existing main line near mile post 174.0 without crossing Parks Highway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve efficiency for freight shipping between Port MacKenzie and Interior Alaska and result in a temporary stimulus to the local economy and labor market with an estimated 66 to 100 workers added over a two-year construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the preferred alternative would involve crossings of floodplains, 19 culverts, two culvert extensions, two drainage structures, and two bridges. Culvert and bridge construction could degrade riparian areas with consequent loss of fish habitat, increase stages and velocities of floodwater, increase channel scour and downstream sedimentation, and change natural drainage. Other impacts would include: loss of 164 acres of wetlands; loss of 652 acres of wildlife habitat, including 223 acres of moose foraging habitat; long-term impact to forest communities; and potential impacts to 23 cultural resources. The Connector 3 segment would displace two structures. Seismic activity could misalign or damage tracks, the railbed, or the access road. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0148D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110096, Final EIS--943 pages, Appendices--1,066 pages, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 49 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Floodplains KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska 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/868224285?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. [Part 48 of 61] T2 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. AN - 868224279; 14852-6_0048 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 30 to 45 miles of rail line between the Port MacKenzie District in Matanuska-Susitna Borough and a point just north of Willow, Alaska are proposed. On December 5, 2008, the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) filed a petition for the Port MacKenzie rail extension to provide freight services between the deep-water port and Interior Alaska. Port MacKenzie is situated on nearly 9,000 acres of land and has an existing dockside bulk materials loading capacity with a conveyor system. Unlike similar port facilities that serve large, ocean-going vehicles, Port MacKenzie does not have rail service. Under the proposed action, ARRC would construct and operate a single-track rail line with a right-of-way (ROW) of 200 feet which would contain a power line, buried utility lines, and an access road. In addition, ARRC would construct one rail line siding within the exiting main line ROW at the tie-in location with the rail extension. The rail line would be constructed and maintained to Class 4 standards with a 60-mile-per-hour operating speed for freight service. Operations support facilities would be constructed and a terminal reserve area along the southern terminus of the line would eventually consist of yard sidings, storage areas, and a terminal building to support train maintenance. This final EIS considers 12 action alternatives based on two southern, three northern, and three connector segments. A No-Action Alternative is also considered. The environmentally preferred alternative is the Mac East Variant-Connector 3 Variant-Houston-Houston South Alternative. This alternative is located in an area of flat topography and would have a comparatively low level of potential impacts to most resources. The Mac East Variant Segment would begin in the terminal reserve area and would proceed north along the east side of the Point MacKenzie Agricultural Project before its junction with the Connector 3 Variant segment. The 5.47-mile-long connector segment would shift to the west and would cross Ayrshire Avenue and Farmers Road before continuing north of My Lake and crossing an adjacent ravine. From the Connector 3 Variant segment, the Houston Segment would proceed northeast, traveling through slightly undulating terrain with areas of wetland. The segment would pass between Papoose Twins and Crooked lakes, crossing an area of hilly terrain. The remaining four miles of the Houston Segment would be in a gradually rising wetland area to a point near Muleshoe and Little Horseshoe lakes, where it would connect to the Houston South Segment. This segment would traverse northeast, passing just west of Pear Lake and would tie into the existing main line near mile post 174.0 without crossing Parks Highway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve efficiency for freight shipping between Port MacKenzie and Interior Alaska and result in a temporary stimulus to the local economy and labor market with an estimated 66 to 100 workers added over a two-year construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the preferred alternative would involve crossings of floodplains, 19 culverts, two culvert extensions, two drainage structures, and two bridges. Culvert and bridge construction could degrade riparian areas with consequent loss of fish habitat, increase stages and velocities of floodwater, increase channel scour and downstream sedimentation, and change natural drainage. Other impacts would include: loss of 164 acres of wetlands; loss of 652 acres of wildlife habitat, including 223 acres of moose foraging habitat; long-term impact to forest communities; and potential impacts to 23 cultural resources. The Connector 3 segment would displace two structures. Seismic activity could misalign or damage tracks, the railbed, or the access road. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0148D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110096, Final EIS--943 pages, Appendices--1,066 pages, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 48 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Floodplains KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska 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/868224279?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 42 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868224278; 14851-5_0042 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 42 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868224278?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. [Part 47 of 61] T2 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. AN - 868224273; 14852-6_0047 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 30 to 45 miles of rail line between the Port MacKenzie District in Matanuska-Susitna Borough and a point just north of Willow, Alaska are proposed. On December 5, 2008, the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) filed a petition for the Port MacKenzie rail extension to provide freight services between the deep-water port and Interior Alaska. Port MacKenzie is situated on nearly 9,000 acres of land and has an existing dockside bulk materials loading capacity with a conveyor system. Unlike similar port facilities that serve large, ocean-going vehicles, Port MacKenzie does not have rail service. Under the proposed action, ARRC would construct and operate a single-track rail line with a right-of-way (ROW) of 200 feet which would contain a power line, buried utility lines, and an access road. In addition, ARRC would construct one rail line siding within the exiting main line ROW at the tie-in location with the rail extension. The rail line would be constructed and maintained to Class 4 standards with a 60-mile-per-hour operating speed for freight service. Operations support facilities would be constructed and a terminal reserve area along the southern terminus of the line would eventually consist of yard sidings, storage areas, and a terminal building to support train maintenance. This final EIS considers 12 action alternatives based on two southern, three northern, and three connector segments. A No-Action Alternative is also considered. The environmentally preferred alternative is the Mac East Variant-Connector 3 Variant-Houston-Houston South Alternative. This alternative is located in an area of flat topography and would have a comparatively low level of potential impacts to most resources. The Mac East Variant Segment would begin in the terminal reserve area and would proceed north along the east side of the Point MacKenzie Agricultural Project before its junction with the Connector 3 Variant segment. The 5.47-mile-long connector segment would shift to the west and would cross Ayrshire Avenue and Farmers Road before continuing north of My Lake and crossing an adjacent ravine. From the Connector 3 Variant segment, the Houston Segment would proceed northeast, traveling through slightly undulating terrain with areas of wetland. The segment would pass between Papoose Twins and Crooked lakes, crossing an area of hilly terrain. The remaining four miles of the Houston Segment would be in a gradually rising wetland area to a point near Muleshoe and Little Horseshoe lakes, where it would connect to the Houston South Segment. This segment would traverse northeast, passing just west of Pear Lake and would tie into the existing main line near mile post 174.0 without crossing Parks Highway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve efficiency for freight shipping between Port MacKenzie and Interior Alaska and result in a temporary stimulus to the local economy and labor market with an estimated 66 to 100 workers added over a two-year construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the preferred alternative would involve crossings of floodplains, 19 culverts, two culvert extensions, two drainage structures, and two bridges. Culvert and bridge construction could degrade riparian areas with consequent loss of fish habitat, increase stages and velocities of floodwater, increase channel scour and downstream sedimentation, and change natural drainage. Other impacts would include: loss of 164 acres of wetlands; loss of 652 acres of wildlife habitat, including 223 acres of moose foraging habitat; long-term impact to forest communities; and potential impacts to 23 cultural resources. The Connector 3 segment would displace two structures. Seismic activity could misalign or damage tracks, the railbed, or the access road. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0148D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110096, Final EIS--943 pages, Appendices--1,066 pages, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 47 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Floodplains KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska 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/868224273?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 41 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868224270; 14851-5_0041 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 41 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868224270?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. [Part 45 of 61] T2 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. AN - 868224262; 14852-6_0045 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 30 to 45 miles of rail line between the Port MacKenzie District in Matanuska-Susitna Borough and a point just north of Willow, Alaska are proposed. On December 5, 2008, the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) filed a petition for the Port MacKenzie rail extension to provide freight services between the deep-water port and Interior Alaska. Port MacKenzie is situated on nearly 9,000 acres of land and has an existing dockside bulk materials loading capacity with a conveyor system. Unlike similar port facilities that serve large, ocean-going vehicles, Port MacKenzie does not have rail service. Under the proposed action, ARRC would construct and operate a single-track rail line with a right-of-way (ROW) of 200 feet which would contain a power line, buried utility lines, and an access road. In addition, ARRC would construct one rail line siding within the exiting main line ROW at the tie-in location with the rail extension. The rail line would be constructed and maintained to Class 4 standards with a 60-mile-per-hour operating speed for freight service. Operations support facilities would be constructed and a terminal reserve area along the southern terminus of the line would eventually consist of yard sidings, storage areas, and a terminal building to support train maintenance. This final EIS considers 12 action alternatives based on two southern, three northern, and three connector segments. A No-Action Alternative is also considered. The environmentally preferred alternative is the Mac East Variant-Connector 3 Variant-Houston-Houston South Alternative. This alternative is located in an area of flat topography and would have a comparatively low level of potential impacts to most resources. The Mac East Variant Segment would begin in the terminal reserve area and would proceed north along the east side of the Point MacKenzie Agricultural Project before its junction with the Connector 3 Variant segment. The 5.47-mile-long connector segment would shift to the west and would cross Ayrshire Avenue and Farmers Road before continuing north of My Lake and crossing an adjacent ravine. From the Connector 3 Variant segment, the Houston Segment would proceed northeast, traveling through slightly undulating terrain with areas of wetland. The segment would pass between Papoose Twins and Crooked lakes, crossing an area of hilly terrain. The remaining four miles of the Houston Segment would be in a gradually rising wetland area to a point near Muleshoe and Little Horseshoe lakes, where it would connect to the Houston South Segment. This segment would traverse northeast, passing just west of Pear Lake and would tie into the existing main line near mile post 174.0 without crossing Parks Highway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve efficiency for freight shipping between Port MacKenzie and Interior Alaska and result in a temporary stimulus to the local economy and labor market with an estimated 66 to 100 workers added over a two-year construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the preferred alternative would involve crossings of floodplains, 19 culverts, two culvert extensions, two drainage structures, and two bridges. Culvert and bridge construction could degrade riparian areas with consequent loss of fish habitat, increase stages and velocities of floodwater, increase channel scour and downstream sedimentation, and change natural drainage. Other impacts would include: loss of 164 acres of wetlands; loss of 652 acres of wildlife habitat, including 223 acres of moose foraging habitat; long-term impact to forest communities; and potential impacts to 23 cultural resources. The Connector 3 segment would displace two structures. Seismic activity could misalign or damage tracks, the railbed, or the access road. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0148D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110096, Final EIS--943 pages, Appendices--1,066 pages, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 45 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Floodplains KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska 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/868224262?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 40 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868224261; 14851-5_0040 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 40 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868224261?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. [Part 44 of 61] T2 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. AN - 868224254; 14852-6_0044 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 30 to 45 miles of rail line between the Port MacKenzie District in Matanuska-Susitna Borough and a point just north of Willow, Alaska are proposed. On December 5, 2008, the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) filed a petition for the Port MacKenzie rail extension to provide freight services between the deep-water port and Interior Alaska. Port MacKenzie is situated on nearly 9,000 acres of land and has an existing dockside bulk materials loading capacity with a conveyor system. Unlike similar port facilities that serve large, ocean-going vehicles, Port MacKenzie does not have rail service. Under the proposed action, ARRC would construct and operate a single-track rail line with a right-of-way (ROW) of 200 feet which would contain a power line, buried utility lines, and an access road. In addition, ARRC would construct one rail line siding within the exiting main line ROW at the tie-in location with the rail extension. The rail line would be constructed and maintained to Class 4 standards with a 60-mile-per-hour operating speed for freight service. Operations support facilities would be constructed and a terminal reserve area along the southern terminus of the line would eventually consist of yard sidings, storage areas, and a terminal building to support train maintenance. This final EIS considers 12 action alternatives based on two southern, three northern, and three connector segments. A No-Action Alternative is also considered. The environmentally preferred alternative is the Mac East Variant-Connector 3 Variant-Houston-Houston South Alternative. This alternative is located in an area of flat topography and would have a comparatively low level of potential impacts to most resources. The Mac East Variant Segment would begin in the terminal reserve area and would proceed north along the east side of the Point MacKenzie Agricultural Project before its junction with the Connector 3 Variant segment. The 5.47-mile-long connector segment would shift to the west and would cross Ayrshire Avenue and Farmers Road before continuing north of My Lake and crossing an adjacent ravine. From the Connector 3 Variant segment, the Houston Segment would proceed northeast, traveling through slightly undulating terrain with areas of wetland. The segment would pass between Papoose Twins and Crooked lakes, crossing an area of hilly terrain. The remaining four miles of the Houston Segment would be in a gradually rising wetland area to a point near Muleshoe and Little Horseshoe lakes, where it would connect to the Houston South Segment. This segment would traverse northeast, passing just west of Pear Lake and would tie into the existing main line near mile post 174.0 without crossing Parks Highway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve efficiency for freight shipping between Port MacKenzie and Interior Alaska and result in a temporary stimulus to the local economy and labor market with an estimated 66 to 100 workers added over a two-year construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the preferred alternative would involve crossings of floodplains, 19 culverts, two culvert extensions, two drainage structures, and two bridges. Culvert and bridge construction could degrade riparian areas with consequent loss of fish habitat, increase stages and velocities of floodwater, increase channel scour and downstream sedimentation, and change natural drainage. Other impacts would include: loss of 164 acres of wetlands; loss of 652 acres of wildlife habitat, including 223 acres of moose foraging habitat; long-term impact to forest communities; and potential impacts to 23 cultural resources. The Connector 3 segment would displace two structures. Seismic activity could misalign or damage tracks, the railbed, or the access road. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0148D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110096, Final EIS--943 pages, Appendices--1,066 pages, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 44 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Floodplains KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska 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/868224254?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 39 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868224249; 14851-5_0039 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 39 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868224249?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 38 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868224238; 14851-5_0038 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 38 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868224238?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. [Part 38 of 61] T2 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. AN - 868224236; 14852-6_0038 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 30 to 45 miles of rail line between the Port MacKenzie District in Matanuska-Susitna Borough and a point just north of Willow, Alaska are proposed. On December 5, 2008, the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) filed a petition for the Port MacKenzie rail extension to provide freight services between the deep-water port and Interior Alaska. Port MacKenzie is situated on nearly 9,000 acres of land and has an existing dockside bulk materials loading capacity with a conveyor system. Unlike similar port facilities that serve large, ocean-going vehicles, Port MacKenzie does not have rail service. Under the proposed action, ARRC would construct and operate a single-track rail line with a right-of-way (ROW) of 200 feet which would contain a power line, buried utility lines, and an access road. In addition, ARRC would construct one rail line siding within the exiting main line ROW at the tie-in location with the rail extension. The rail line would be constructed and maintained to Class 4 standards with a 60-mile-per-hour operating speed for freight service. Operations support facilities would be constructed and a terminal reserve area along the southern terminus of the line would eventually consist of yard sidings, storage areas, and a terminal building to support train maintenance. This final EIS considers 12 action alternatives based on two southern, three northern, and three connector segments. A No-Action Alternative is also considered. The environmentally preferred alternative is the Mac East Variant-Connector 3 Variant-Houston-Houston South Alternative. This alternative is located in an area of flat topography and would have a comparatively low level of potential impacts to most resources. The Mac East Variant Segment would begin in the terminal reserve area and would proceed north along the east side of the Point MacKenzie Agricultural Project before its junction with the Connector 3 Variant segment. The 5.47-mile-long connector segment would shift to the west and would cross Ayrshire Avenue and Farmers Road before continuing north of My Lake and crossing an adjacent ravine. From the Connector 3 Variant segment, the Houston Segment would proceed northeast, traveling through slightly undulating terrain with areas of wetland. The segment would pass between Papoose Twins and Crooked lakes, crossing an area of hilly terrain. The remaining four miles of the Houston Segment would be in a gradually rising wetland area to a point near Muleshoe and Little Horseshoe lakes, where it would connect to the Houston South Segment. This segment would traverse northeast, passing just west of Pear Lake and would tie into the existing main line near mile post 174.0 without crossing Parks Highway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve efficiency for freight shipping between Port MacKenzie and Interior Alaska and result in a temporary stimulus to the local economy and labor market with an estimated 66 to 100 workers added over a two-year construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the preferred alternative would involve crossings of floodplains, 19 culverts, two culvert extensions, two drainage structures, and two bridges. Culvert and bridge construction could degrade riparian areas with consequent loss of fish habitat, increase stages and velocities of floodwater, increase channel scour and downstream sedimentation, and change natural drainage. Other impacts would include: loss of 164 acres of wetlands; loss of 652 acres of wildlife habitat, including 223 acres of moose foraging habitat; long-term impact to forest communities; and potential impacts to 23 cultural resources. The Connector 3 segment would displace two structures. Seismic activity could misalign or damage tracks, the railbed, or the access road. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0148D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110096, Final EIS--943 pages, Appendices--1,066 pages, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 38 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Floodplains KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska 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/868224236?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 65 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868224235; 14851-5_0065 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 65 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868224235?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. [Part 36 of 61] T2 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. AN - 868224229; 14852-6_0036 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 30 to 45 miles of rail line between the Port MacKenzie District in Matanuska-Susitna Borough and a point just north of Willow, Alaska are proposed. On December 5, 2008, the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) filed a petition for the Port MacKenzie rail extension to provide freight services between the deep-water port and Interior Alaska. Port MacKenzie is situated on nearly 9,000 acres of land and has an existing dockside bulk materials loading capacity with a conveyor system. Unlike similar port facilities that serve large, ocean-going vehicles, Port MacKenzie does not have rail service. Under the proposed action, ARRC would construct and operate a single-track rail line with a right-of-way (ROW) of 200 feet which would contain a power line, buried utility lines, and an access road. In addition, ARRC would construct one rail line siding within the exiting main line ROW at the tie-in location with the rail extension. The rail line would be constructed and maintained to Class 4 standards with a 60-mile-per-hour operating speed for freight service. Operations support facilities would be constructed and a terminal reserve area along the southern terminus of the line would eventually consist of yard sidings, storage areas, and a terminal building to support train maintenance. This final EIS considers 12 action alternatives based on two southern, three northern, and three connector segments. A No-Action Alternative is also considered. The environmentally preferred alternative is the Mac East Variant-Connector 3 Variant-Houston-Houston South Alternative. This alternative is located in an area of flat topography and would have a comparatively low level of potential impacts to most resources. The Mac East Variant Segment would begin in the terminal reserve area and would proceed north along the east side of the Point MacKenzie Agricultural Project before its junction with the Connector 3 Variant segment. The 5.47-mile-long connector segment would shift to the west and would cross Ayrshire Avenue and Farmers Road before continuing north of My Lake and crossing an adjacent ravine. From the Connector 3 Variant segment, the Houston Segment would proceed northeast, traveling through slightly undulating terrain with areas of wetland. The segment would pass between Papoose Twins and Crooked lakes, crossing an area of hilly terrain. The remaining four miles of the Houston Segment would be in a gradually rising wetland area to a point near Muleshoe and Little Horseshoe lakes, where it would connect to the Houston South Segment. This segment would traverse northeast, passing just west of Pear Lake and would tie into the existing main line near mile post 174.0 without crossing Parks Highway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve efficiency for freight shipping between Port MacKenzie and Interior Alaska and result in a temporary stimulus to the local economy and labor market with an estimated 66 to 100 workers added over a two-year construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the preferred alternative would involve crossings of floodplains, 19 culverts, two culvert extensions, two drainage structures, and two bridges. Culvert and bridge construction could degrade riparian areas with consequent loss of fish habitat, increase stages and velocities of floodwater, increase channel scour and downstream sedimentation, and change natural drainage. Other impacts would include: loss of 164 acres of wetlands; loss of 652 acres of wildlife habitat, including 223 acres of moose foraging habitat; long-term impact to forest communities; and potential impacts to 23 cultural resources. The Connector 3 segment would displace two structures. Seismic activity could misalign or damage tracks, the railbed, or the access road. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0148D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110096, Final EIS--943 pages, Appendices--1,066 pages, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 36 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Floodplains KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska 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/868224229?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 64 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868224222; 14851-5_0064 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 64 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868224222?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. [Part 35 of 61] T2 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. AN - 868224216; 14852-6_0035 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 30 to 45 miles of rail line between the Port MacKenzie District in Matanuska-Susitna Borough and a point just north of Willow, Alaska are proposed. On December 5, 2008, the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) filed a petition for the Port MacKenzie rail extension to provide freight services between the deep-water port and Interior Alaska. Port MacKenzie is situated on nearly 9,000 acres of land and has an existing dockside bulk materials loading capacity with a conveyor system. Unlike similar port facilities that serve large, ocean-going vehicles, Port MacKenzie does not have rail service. Under the proposed action, ARRC would construct and operate a single-track rail line with a right-of-way (ROW) of 200 feet which would contain a power line, buried utility lines, and an access road. In addition, ARRC would construct one rail line siding within the exiting main line ROW at the tie-in location with the rail extension. The rail line would be constructed and maintained to Class 4 standards with a 60-mile-per-hour operating speed for freight service. Operations support facilities would be constructed and a terminal reserve area along the southern terminus of the line would eventually consist of yard sidings, storage areas, and a terminal building to support train maintenance. This final EIS considers 12 action alternatives based on two southern, three northern, and three connector segments. A No-Action Alternative is also considered. The environmentally preferred alternative is the Mac East Variant-Connector 3 Variant-Houston-Houston South Alternative. This alternative is located in an area of flat topography and would have a comparatively low level of potential impacts to most resources. The Mac East Variant Segment would begin in the terminal reserve area and would proceed north along the east side of the Point MacKenzie Agricultural Project before its junction with the Connector 3 Variant segment. The 5.47-mile-long connector segment would shift to the west and would cross Ayrshire Avenue and Farmers Road before continuing north of My Lake and crossing an adjacent ravine. From the Connector 3 Variant segment, the Houston Segment would proceed northeast, traveling through slightly undulating terrain with areas of wetland. The segment would pass between Papoose Twins and Crooked lakes, crossing an area of hilly terrain. The remaining four miles of the Houston Segment would be in a gradually rising wetland area to a point near Muleshoe and Little Horseshoe lakes, where it would connect to the Houston South Segment. This segment would traverse northeast, passing just west of Pear Lake and would tie into the existing main line near mile post 174.0 without crossing Parks Highway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve efficiency for freight shipping between Port MacKenzie and Interior Alaska and result in a temporary stimulus to the local economy and labor market with an estimated 66 to 100 workers added over a two-year construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the preferred alternative would involve crossings of floodplains, 19 culverts, two culvert extensions, two drainage structures, and two bridges. Culvert and bridge construction could degrade riparian areas with consequent loss of fish habitat, increase stages and velocities of floodwater, increase channel scour and downstream sedimentation, and change natural drainage. Other impacts would include: loss of 164 acres of wetlands; loss of 652 acres of wildlife habitat, including 223 acres of moose foraging habitat; long-term impact to forest communities; and potential impacts to 23 cultural resources. The Connector 3 segment would displace two structures. Seismic activity could misalign or damage tracks, the railbed, or the access road. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0148D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110096, Final EIS--943 pages, Appendices--1,066 pages, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 35 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Floodplains KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska 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/868224216?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. [Part 34 of 61] T2 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. AN - 868224210; 14852-6_0034 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 30 to 45 miles of rail line between the Port MacKenzie District in Matanuska-Susitna Borough and a point just north of Willow, Alaska are proposed. On December 5, 2008, the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) filed a petition for the Port MacKenzie rail extension to provide freight services between the deep-water port and Interior Alaska. Port MacKenzie is situated on nearly 9,000 acres of land and has an existing dockside bulk materials loading capacity with a conveyor system. Unlike similar port facilities that serve large, ocean-going vehicles, Port MacKenzie does not have rail service. Under the proposed action, ARRC would construct and operate a single-track rail line with a right-of-way (ROW) of 200 feet which would contain a power line, buried utility lines, and an access road. In addition, ARRC would construct one rail line siding within the exiting main line ROW at the tie-in location with the rail extension. The rail line would be constructed and maintained to Class 4 standards with a 60-mile-per-hour operating speed for freight service. Operations support facilities would be constructed and a terminal reserve area along the southern terminus of the line would eventually consist of yard sidings, storage areas, and a terminal building to support train maintenance. This final EIS considers 12 action alternatives based on two southern, three northern, and three connector segments. A No-Action Alternative is also considered. The environmentally preferred alternative is the Mac East Variant-Connector 3 Variant-Houston-Houston South Alternative. This alternative is located in an area of flat topography and would have a comparatively low level of potential impacts to most resources. The Mac East Variant Segment would begin in the terminal reserve area and would proceed north along the east side of the Point MacKenzie Agricultural Project before its junction with the Connector 3 Variant segment. The 5.47-mile-long connector segment would shift to the west and would cross Ayrshire Avenue and Farmers Road before continuing north of My Lake and crossing an adjacent ravine. From the Connector 3 Variant segment, the Houston Segment would proceed northeast, traveling through slightly undulating terrain with areas of wetland. The segment would pass between Papoose Twins and Crooked lakes, crossing an area of hilly terrain. The remaining four miles of the Houston Segment would be in a gradually rising wetland area to a point near Muleshoe and Little Horseshoe lakes, where it would connect to the Houston South Segment. This segment would traverse northeast, passing just west of Pear Lake and would tie into the existing main line near mile post 174.0 without crossing Parks Highway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve efficiency for freight shipping between Port MacKenzie and Interior Alaska and result in a temporary stimulus to the local economy and labor market with an estimated 66 to 100 workers added over a two-year construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the preferred alternative would involve crossings of floodplains, 19 culverts, two culvert extensions, two drainage structures, and two bridges. Culvert and bridge construction could degrade riparian areas with consequent loss of fish habitat, increase stages and velocities of floodwater, increase channel scour and downstream sedimentation, and change natural drainage. Other impacts would include: loss of 164 acres of wetlands; loss of 652 acres of wildlife habitat, including 223 acres of moose foraging habitat; long-term impact to forest communities; and potential impacts to 23 cultural resources. The Connector 3 segment would displace two structures. Seismic activity could misalign or damage tracks, the railbed, or the access road. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0148D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110096, Final EIS--943 pages, Appendices--1,066 pages, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 34 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Floodplains KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska 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/868224210?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 63 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868224208; 14851-5_0063 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 63 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868224208?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_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=Early+Child+Development+and+Care&rft.atitle=Child%E2%80%93child+interactions+and+positive+social+focus+among+preschool+children&rft.au=N%C3%A6rland%2C+Terje%3BMartinsen%2C+Harald&rft.aulast=N%C3%A6rland&rft.aufirst=Terje&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=181&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=361&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Early+Child+Development+and+Care&rft.issn=03004430&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080%2F03004430903387701 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. [Part 33 of 61] T2 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. AN - 868224201; 14852-6_0033 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 30 to 45 miles of rail line between the Port MacKenzie District in Matanuska-Susitna Borough and a point just north of Willow, Alaska are proposed. On December 5, 2008, the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) filed a petition for the Port MacKenzie rail extension to provide freight services between the deep-water port and Interior Alaska. Port MacKenzie is situated on nearly 9,000 acres of land and has an existing dockside bulk materials loading capacity with a conveyor system. Unlike similar port facilities that serve large, ocean-going vehicles, Port MacKenzie does not have rail service. Under the proposed action, ARRC would construct and operate a single-track rail line with a right-of-way (ROW) of 200 feet which would contain a power line, buried utility lines, and an access road. In addition, ARRC would construct one rail line siding within the exiting main line ROW at the tie-in location with the rail extension. The rail line would be constructed and maintained to Class 4 standards with a 60-mile-per-hour operating speed for freight service. Operations support facilities would be constructed and a terminal reserve area along the southern terminus of the line would eventually consist of yard sidings, storage areas, and a terminal building to support train maintenance. This final EIS considers 12 action alternatives based on two southern, three northern, and three connector segments. A No-Action Alternative is also considered. The environmentally preferred alternative is the Mac East Variant-Connector 3 Variant-Houston-Houston South Alternative. This alternative is located in an area of flat topography and would have a comparatively low level of potential impacts to most resources. The Mac East Variant Segment would begin in the terminal reserve area and would proceed north along the east side of the Point MacKenzie Agricultural Project before its junction with the Connector 3 Variant segment. The 5.47-mile-long connector segment would shift to the west and would cross Ayrshire Avenue and Farmers Road before continuing north of My Lake and crossing an adjacent ravine. From the Connector 3 Variant segment, the Houston Segment would proceed northeast, traveling through slightly undulating terrain with areas of wetland. The segment would pass between Papoose Twins and Crooked lakes, crossing an area of hilly terrain. The remaining four miles of the Houston Segment would be in a gradually rising wetland area to a point near Muleshoe and Little Horseshoe lakes, where it would connect to the Houston South Segment. This segment would traverse northeast, passing just west of Pear Lake and would tie into the existing main line near mile post 174.0 without crossing Parks Highway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve efficiency for freight shipping between Port MacKenzie and Interior Alaska and result in a temporary stimulus to the local economy and labor market with an estimated 66 to 100 workers added over a two-year construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the preferred alternative would involve crossings of floodplains, 19 culverts, two culvert extensions, two drainage structures, and two bridges. Culvert and bridge construction could degrade riparian areas with consequent loss of fish habitat, increase stages and velocities of floodwater, increase channel scour and downstream sedimentation, and change natural drainage. Other impacts would include: loss of 164 acres of wetlands; loss of 652 acres of wildlife habitat, including 223 acres of moose foraging habitat; long-term impact to forest communities; and potential impacts to 23 cultural resources. The Connector 3 segment would displace two structures. Seismic activity could misalign or damage tracks, the railbed, or the access road. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0148D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110096, Final EIS--943 pages, Appendices--1,066 pages, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 33 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Floodplains KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska 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/868224201?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002%2Ficd.1957 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 62 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868224196; 14851-5_0062 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 62 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868224196?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. [Part 32 of 61] T2 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. AN - 868224188; 14852-6_0032 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 30 to 45 miles of rail line between the Port MacKenzie District in Matanuska-Susitna Borough and a point just north of Willow, Alaska are proposed. On December 5, 2008, the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) filed a petition for the Port MacKenzie rail extension to provide freight services between the deep-water port and Interior Alaska. Port MacKenzie is situated on nearly 9,000 acres of land and has an existing dockside bulk materials loading capacity with a conveyor system. Unlike similar port facilities that serve large, ocean-going vehicles, Port MacKenzie does not have rail service. Under the proposed action, ARRC would construct and operate a single-track rail line with a right-of-way (ROW) of 200 feet which would contain a power line, buried utility lines, and an access road. In addition, ARRC would construct one rail line siding within the exiting main line ROW at the tie-in location with the rail extension. The rail line would be constructed and maintained to Class 4 standards with a 60-mile-per-hour operating speed for freight service. Operations support facilities would be constructed and a terminal reserve area along the southern terminus of the line would eventually consist of yard sidings, storage areas, and a terminal building to support train maintenance. This final EIS considers 12 action alternatives based on two southern, three northern, and three connector segments. A No-Action Alternative is also considered. The environmentally preferred alternative is the Mac East Variant-Connector 3 Variant-Houston-Houston South Alternative. This alternative is located in an area of flat topography and would have a comparatively low level of potential impacts to most resources. The Mac East Variant Segment would begin in the terminal reserve area and would proceed north along the east side of the Point MacKenzie Agricultural Project before its junction with the Connector 3 Variant segment. The 5.47-mile-long connector segment would shift to the west and would cross Ayrshire Avenue and Farmers Road before continuing north of My Lake and crossing an adjacent ravine. From the Connector 3 Variant segment, the Houston Segment would proceed northeast, traveling through slightly undulating terrain with areas of wetland. The segment would pass between Papoose Twins and Crooked lakes, crossing an area of hilly terrain. The remaining four miles of the Houston Segment would be in a gradually rising wetland area to a point near Muleshoe and Little Horseshoe lakes, where it would connect to the Houston South Segment. This segment would traverse northeast, passing just west of Pear Lake and would tie into the existing main line near mile post 174.0 without crossing Parks Highway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve efficiency for freight shipping between Port MacKenzie and Interior Alaska and result in a temporary stimulus to the local economy and labor market with an estimated 66 to 100 workers added over a two-year construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the preferred alternative would involve crossings of floodplains, 19 culverts, two culvert extensions, two drainage structures, and two bridges. Culvert and bridge construction could degrade riparian areas with consequent loss of fish habitat, increase stages and velocities of floodwater, increase channel scour and downstream sedimentation, and change natural drainage. Other impacts would include: loss of 164 acres of wetlands; loss of 652 acres of wildlife habitat, including 223 acres of moose foraging habitat; long-term impact to forest communities; and potential impacts to 23 cultural resources. The Connector 3 segment would displace two structures. Seismic activity could misalign or damage tracks, the railbed, or the access road. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0148D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110096, Final EIS--943 pages, Appendices--1,066 pages, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 32 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Floodplains KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska 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/868224188?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 61 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868224184; 14851-5_0061 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 61 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868224184?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. [Part 28 of 61] T2 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. AN - 868224177; 14852-6_0028 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 30 to 45 miles of rail line between the Port MacKenzie District in Matanuska-Susitna Borough and a point just north of Willow, Alaska are proposed. On December 5, 2008, the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) filed a petition for the Port MacKenzie rail extension to provide freight services between the deep-water port and Interior Alaska. Port MacKenzie is situated on nearly 9,000 acres of land and has an existing dockside bulk materials loading capacity with a conveyor system. Unlike similar port facilities that serve large, ocean-going vehicles, Port MacKenzie does not have rail service. Under the proposed action, ARRC would construct and operate a single-track rail line with a right-of-way (ROW) of 200 feet which would contain a power line, buried utility lines, and an access road. In addition, ARRC would construct one rail line siding within the exiting main line ROW at the tie-in location with the rail extension. The rail line would be constructed and maintained to Class 4 standards with a 60-mile-per-hour operating speed for freight service. Operations support facilities would be constructed and a terminal reserve area along the southern terminus of the line would eventually consist of yard sidings, storage areas, and a terminal building to support train maintenance. This final EIS considers 12 action alternatives based on two southern, three northern, and three connector segments. A No-Action Alternative is also considered. The environmentally preferred alternative is the Mac East Variant-Connector 3 Variant-Houston-Houston South Alternative. This alternative is located in an area of flat topography and would have a comparatively low level of potential impacts to most resources. The Mac East Variant Segment would begin in the terminal reserve area and would proceed north along the east side of the Point MacKenzie Agricultural Project before its junction with the Connector 3 Variant segment. The 5.47-mile-long connector segment would shift to the west and would cross Ayrshire Avenue and Farmers Road before continuing north of My Lake and crossing an adjacent ravine. From the Connector 3 Variant segment, the Houston Segment would proceed northeast, traveling through slightly undulating terrain with areas of wetland. The segment would pass between Papoose Twins and Crooked lakes, crossing an area of hilly terrain. The remaining four miles of the Houston Segment would be in a gradually rising wetland area to a point near Muleshoe and Little Horseshoe lakes, where it would connect to the Houston South Segment. This segment would traverse northeast, passing just west of Pear Lake and would tie into the existing main line near mile post 174.0 without crossing Parks Highway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve efficiency for freight shipping between Port MacKenzie and Interior Alaska and result in a temporary stimulus to the local economy and labor market with an estimated 66 to 100 workers added over a two-year construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the preferred alternative would involve crossings of floodplains, 19 culverts, two culvert extensions, two drainage structures, and two bridges. Culvert and bridge construction could degrade riparian areas with consequent loss of fish habitat, increase stages and velocities of floodwater, increase channel scour and downstream sedimentation, and change natural drainage. Other impacts would include: loss of 164 acres of wetlands; loss of 652 acres of wildlife habitat, including 223 acres of moose foraging habitat; long-term impact to forest communities; and potential impacts to 23 cultural resources. The Connector 3 segment would displace two structures. Seismic activity could misalign or damage tracks, the railbed, or the access road. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0148D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110096, Final EIS--943 pages, Appendices--1,066 pages, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 28 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Floodplains KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska 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/868224177?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 60 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868224166; 14851-5_0060 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 60 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868224166?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. [Part 18 of 61] T2 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. AN - 868224164; 14852-6_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 30 to 45 miles of rail line between the Port MacKenzie District in Matanuska-Susitna Borough and a point just north of Willow, Alaska are proposed. On December 5, 2008, the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) filed a petition for the Port MacKenzie rail extension to provide freight services between the deep-water port and Interior Alaska. Port MacKenzie is situated on nearly 9,000 acres of land and has an existing dockside bulk materials loading capacity with a conveyor system. Unlike similar port facilities that serve large, ocean-going vehicles, Port MacKenzie does not have rail service. Under the proposed action, ARRC would construct and operate a single-track rail line with a right-of-way (ROW) of 200 feet which would contain a power line, buried utility lines, and an access road. In addition, ARRC would construct one rail line siding within the exiting main line ROW at the tie-in location with the rail extension. The rail line would be constructed and maintained to Class 4 standards with a 60-mile-per-hour operating speed for freight service. Operations support facilities would be constructed and a terminal reserve area along the southern terminus of the line would eventually consist of yard sidings, storage areas, and a terminal building to support train maintenance. This final EIS considers 12 action alternatives based on two southern, three northern, and three connector segments. A No-Action Alternative is also considered. The environmentally preferred alternative is the Mac East Variant-Connector 3 Variant-Houston-Houston South Alternative. This alternative is located in an area of flat topography and would have a comparatively low level of potential impacts to most resources. The Mac East Variant Segment would begin in the terminal reserve area and would proceed north along the east side of the Point MacKenzie Agricultural Project before its junction with the Connector 3 Variant segment. The 5.47-mile-long connector segment would shift to the west and would cross Ayrshire Avenue and Farmers Road before continuing north of My Lake and crossing an adjacent ravine. From the Connector 3 Variant segment, the Houston Segment would proceed northeast, traveling through slightly undulating terrain with areas of wetland. The segment would pass between Papoose Twins and Crooked lakes, crossing an area of hilly terrain. The remaining four miles of the Houston Segment would be in a gradually rising wetland area to a point near Muleshoe and Little Horseshoe lakes, where it would connect to the Houston South Segment. This segment would traverse northeast, passing just west of Pear Lake and would tie into the existing main line near mile post 174.0 without crossing Parks Highway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve efficiency for freight shipping between Port MacKenzie and Interior Alaska and result in a temporary stimulus to the local economy and labor market with an estimated 66 to 100 workers added over a two-year construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the preferred alternative would involve crossings of floodplains, 19 culverts, two culvert extensions, two drainage structures, and two bridges. Culvert and bridge construction could degrade riparian areas with consequent loss of fish habitat, increase stages and velocities of floodwater, increase channel scour and downstream sedimentation, and change natural drainage. Other impacts would include: loss of 164 acres of wetlands; loss of 652 acres of wildlife habitat, including 223 acres of moose foraging habitat; long-term impact to forest communities; and potential impacts to 23 cultural resources. The Connector 3 segment would displace two structures. Seismic activity could misalign or damage tracks, the railbed, or the access road. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0148D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110096, Final EIS--943 pages, Appendices--1,066 pages, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 18 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Floodplains KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska 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/868224164?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. [Part 16 of 61] T2 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. AN - 868224140; 14852-6_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 30 to 45 miles of rail line between the Port MacKenzie District in Matanuska-Susitna Borough and a point just north of Willow, Alaska are proposed. On December 5, 2008, the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) filed a petition for the Port MacKenzie rail extension to provide freight services between the deep-water port and Interior Alaska. Port MacKenzie is situated on nearly 9,000 acres of land and has an existing dockside bulk materials loading capacity with a conveyor system. Unlike similar port facilities that serve large, ocean-going vehicles, Port MacKenzie does not have rail service. Under the proposed action, ARRC would construct and operate a single-track rail line with a right-of-way (ROW) of 200 feet which would contain a power line, buried utility lines, and an access road. In addition, ARRC would construct one rail line siding within the exiting main line ROW at the tie-in location with the rail extension. The rail line would be constructed and maintained to Class 4 standards with a 60-mile-per-hour operating speed for freight service. Operations support facilities would be constructed and a terminal reserve area along the southern terminus of the line would eventually consist of yard sidings, storage areas, and a terminal building to support train maintenance. This final EIS considers 12 action alternatives based on two southern, three northern, and three connector segments. A No-Action Alternative is also considered. The environmentally preferred alternative is the Mac East Variant-Connector 3 Variant-Houston-Houston South Alternative. This alternative is located in an area of flat topography and would have a comparatively low level of potential impacts to most resources. The Mac East Variant Segment would begin in the terminal reserve area and would proceed north along the east side of the Point MacKenzie Agricultural Project before its junction with the Connector 3 Variant segment. The 5.47-mile-long connector segment would shift to the west and would cross Ayrshire Avenue and Farmers Road before continuing north of My Lake and crossing an adjacent ravine. From the Connector 3 Variant segment, the Houston Segment would proceed northeast, traveling through slightly undulating terrain with areas of wetland. The segment would pass between Papoose Twins and Crooked lakes, crossing an area of hilly terrain. The remaining four miles of the Houston Segment would be in a gradually rising wetland area to a point near Muleshoe and Little Horseshoe lakes, where it would connect to the Houston South Segment. This segment would traverse northeast, passing just west of Pear Lake and would tie into the existing main line near mile post 174.0 without crossing Parks Highway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve efficiency for freight shipping between Port MacKenzie and Interior Alaska and result in a temporary stimulus to the local economy and labor market with an estimated 66 to 100 workers added over a two-year construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the preferred alternative would involve crossings of floodplains, 19 culverts, two culvert extensions, two drainage structures, and two bridges. Culvert and bridge construction could degrade riparian areas with consequent loss of fish habitat, increase stages and velocities of floodwater, increase channel scour and downstream sedimentation, and change natural drainage. Other impacts would include: loss of 164 acres of wetlands; loss of 652 acres of wildlife habitat, including 223 acres of moose foraging habitat; long-term impact to forest communities; and potential impacts to 23 cultural resources. The Connector 3 segment would displace two structures. Seismic activity could misalign or damage tracks, the railbed, or the access road. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0148D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110096, Final EIS--943 pages, Appendices--1,066 pages, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 16 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Floodplains KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska 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/868224140?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. [Part 15 of 61] T2 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. AN - 868224135; 14852-6_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 30 to 45 miles of rail line between the Port MacKenzie District in Matanuska-Susitna Borough and a point just north of Willow, Alaska are proposed. On December 5, 2008, the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) filed a petition for the Port MacKenzie rail extension to provide freight services between the deep-water port and Interior Alaska. Port MacKenzie is situated on nearly 9,000 acres of land and has an existing dockside bulk materials loading capacity with a conveyor system. Unlike similar port facilities that serve large, ocean-going vehicles, Port MacKenzie does not have rail service. Under the proposed action, ARRC would construct and operate a single-track rail line with a right-of-way (ROW) of 200 feet which would contain a power line, buried utility lines, and an access road. In addition, ARRC would construct one rail line siding within the exiting main line ROW at the tie-in location with the rail extension. The rail line would be constructed and maintained to Class 4 standards with a 60-mile-per-hour operating speed for freight service. Operations support facilities would be constructed and a terminal reserve area along the southern terminus of the line would eventually consist of yard sidings, storage areas, and a terminal building to support train maintenance. This final EIS considers 12 action alternatives based on two southern, three northern, and three connector segments. A No-Action Alternative is also considered. The environmentally preferred alternative is the Mac East Variant-Connector 3 Variant-Houston-Houston South Alternative. This alternative is located in an area of flat topography and would have a comparatively low level of potential impacts to most resources. The Mac East Variant Segment would begin in the terminal reserve area and would proceed north along the east side of the Point MacKenzie Agricultural Project before its junction with the Connector 3 Variant segment. The 5.47-mile-long connector segment would shift to the west and would cross Ayrshire Avenue and Farmers Road before continuing north of My Lake and crossing an adjacent ravine. From the Connector 3 Variant segment, the Houston Segment would proceed northeast, traveling through slightly undulating terrain with areas of wetland. The segment would pass between Papoose Twins and Crooked lakes, crossing an area of hilly terrain. The remaining four miles of the Houston Segment would be in a gradually rising wetland area to a point near Muleshoe and Little Horseshoe lakes, where it would connect to the Houston South Segment. This segment would traverse northeast, passing just west of Pear Lake and would tie into the existing main line near mile post 174.0 without crossing Parks Highway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve efficiency for freight shipping between Port MacKenzie and Interior Alaska and result in a temporary stimulus to the local economy and labor market with an estimated 66 to 100 workers added over a two-year construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the preferred alternative would involve crossings of floodplains, 19 culverts, two culvert extensions, two drainage structures, and two bridges. Culvert and bridge construction could degrade riparian areas with consequent loss of fish habitat, increase stages and velocities of floodwater, increase channel scour and downstream sedimentation, and change natural drainage. Other impacts would include: loss of 164 acres of wetlands; loss of 652 acres of wildlife habitat, including 223 acres of moose foraging habitat; long-term impact to forest communities; and potential impacts to 23 cultural resources. The Connector 3 segment would displace two structures. Seismic activity could misalign or damage tracks, the railbed, or the access road. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0148D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110096, Final EIS--943 pages, Appendices--1,066 pages, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Floodplains KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska 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/868224135?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 59 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868224132; 14851-5_0059 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 59 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868224132?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. [Part 9 of 61] T2 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. AN - 868224119; 14852-6_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 30 to 45 miles of rail line between the Port MacKenzie District in Matanuska-Susitna Borough and a point just north of Willow, Alaska are proposed. On December 5, 2008, the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) filed a petition for the Port MacKenzie rail extension to provide freight services between the deep-water port and Interior Alaska. Port MacKenzie is situated on nearly 9,000 acres of land and has an existing dockside bulk materials loading capacity with a conveyor system. Unlike similar port facilities that serve large, ocean-going vehicles, Port MacKenzie does not have rail service. Under the proposed action, ARRC would construct and operate a single-track rail line with a right-of-way (ROW) of 200 feet which would contain a power line, buried utility lines, and an access road. In addition, ARRC would construct one rail line siding within the exiting main line ROW at the tie-in location with the rail extension. The rail line would be constructed and maintained to Class 4 standards with a 60-mile-per-hour operating speed for freight service. Operations support facilities would be constructed and a terminal reserve area along the southern terminus of the line would eventually consist of yard sidings, storage areas, and a terminal building to support train maintenance. This final EIS considers 12 action alternatives based on two southern, three northern, and three connector segments. A No-Action Alternative is also considered. The environmentally preferred alternative is the Mac East Variant-Connector 3 Variant-Houston-Houston South Alternative. This alternative is located in an area of flat topography and would have a comparatively low level of potential impacts to most resources. The Mac East Variant Segment would begin in the terminal reserve area and would proceed north along the east side of the Point MacKenzie Agricultural Project before its junction with the Connector 3 Variant segment. The 5.47-mile-long connector segment would shift to the west and would cross Ayrshire Avenue and Farmers Road before continuing north of My Lake and crossing an adjacent ravine. From the Connector 3 Variant segment, the Houston Segment would proceed northeast, traveling through slightly undulating terrain with areas of wetland. The segment would pass between Papoose Twins and Crooked lakes, crossing an area of hilly terrain. The remaining four miles of the Houston Segment would be in a gradually rising wetland area to a point near Muleshoe and Little Horseshoe lakes, where it would connect to the Houston South Segment. This segment would traverse northeast, passing just west of Pear Lake and would tie into the existing main line near mile post 174.0 without crossing Parks Highway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve efficiency for freight shipping between Port MacKenzie and Interior Alaska and result in a temporary stimulus to the local economy and labor market with an estimated 66 to 100 workers added over a two-year construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the preferred alternative would involve crossings of floodplains, 19 culverts, two culvert extensions, two drainage structures, and two bridges. Culvert and bridge construction could degrade riparian areas with consequent loss of fish habitat, increase stages and velocities of floodwater, increase channel scour and downstream sedimentation, and change natural drainage. Other impacts would include: loss of 164 acres of wetlands; loss of 652 acres of wildlife habitat, including 223 acres of moose foraging habitat; long-term impact to forest communities; and potential impacts to 23 cultural resources. The Connector 3 segment would displace two structures. Seismic activity could misalign or damage tracks, the railbed, or the access road. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0148D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110096, Final EIS--943 pages, Appendices--1,066 pages, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Floodplains KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska 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/868224119?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 58 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868224113; 14851-5_0058 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 58 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868224113?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 37 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868224098; 14851-5_0037 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 37 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868224098?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. [Part 7 of 61] T2 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. AN - 868224093; 14852-6_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 30 to 45 miles of rail line between the Port MacKenzie District in Matanuska-Susitna Borough and a point just north of Willow, Alaska are proposed. On December 5, 2008, the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) filed a petition for the Port MacKenzie rail extension to provide freight services between the deep-water port and Interior Alaska. Port MacKenzie is situated on nearly 9,000 acres of land and has an existing dockside bulk materials loading capacity with a conveyor system. Unlike similar port facilities that serve large, ocean-going vehicles, Port MacKenzie does not have rail service. Under the proposed action, ARRC would construct and operate a single-track rail line with a right-of-way (ROW) of 200 feet which would contain a power line, buried utility lines, and an access road. In addition, ARRC would construct one rail line siding within the exiting main line ROW at the tie-in location with the rail extension. The rail line would be constructed and maintained to Class 4 standards with a 60-mile-per-hour operating speed for freight service. Operations support facilities would be constructed and a terminal reserve area along the southern terminus of the line would eventually consist of yard sidings, storage areas, and a terminal building to support train maintenance. This final EIS considers 12 action alternatives based on two southern, three northern, and three connector segments. A No-Action Alternative is also considered. The environmentally preferred alternative is the Mac East Variant-Connector 3 Variant-Houston-Houston South Alternative. This alternative is located in an area of flat topography and would have a comparatively low level of potential impacts to most resources. The Mac East Variant Segment would begin in the terminal reserve area and would proceed north along the east side of the Point MacKenzie Agricultural Project before its junction with the Connector 3 Variant segment. The 5.47-mile-long connector segment would shift to the west and would cross Ayrshire Avenue and Farmers Road before continuing north of My Lake and crossing an adjacent ravine. From the Connector 3 Variant segment, the Houston Segment would proceed northeast, traveling through slightly undulating terrain with areas of wetland. The segment would pass between Papoose Twins and Crooked lakes, crossing an area of hilly terrain. The remaining four miles of the Houston Segment would be in a gradually rising wetland area to a point near Muleshoe and Little Horseshoe lakes, where it would connect to the Houston South Segment. This segment would traverse northeast, passing just west of Pear Lake and would tie into the existing main line near mile post 174.0 without crossing Parks Highway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve efficiency for freight shipping between Port MacKenzie and Interior Alaska and result in a temporary stimulus to the local economy and labor market with an estimated 66 to 100 workers added over a two-year construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the preferred alternative would involve crossings of floodplains, 19 culverts, two culvert extensions, two drainage structures, and two bridges. Culvert and bridge construction could degrade riparian areas with consequent loss of fish habitat, increase stages and velocities of floodwater, increase channel scour and downstream sedimentation, and change natural drainage. Other impacts would include: loss of 164 acres of wetlands; loss of 652 acres of wildlife habitat, including 223 acres of moose foraging habitat; long-term impact to forest communities; and potential impacts to 23 cultural resources. The Connector 3 segment would displace two structures. Seismic activity could misalign or damage tracks, the railbed, or the access road. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0148D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110096, Final EIS--943 pages, Appendices--1,066 pages, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Floodplains KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska 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/868224093?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 96 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868224089; 14851-5_0096 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 96 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868224089?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 36 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868224088; 14851-5_0036 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 36 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868224088?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 95 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868224078; 14851-5_0095 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 95 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868224078?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 35 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868224077; 14851-5_0035 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 35 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868224077?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 34 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868224069; 14851-5_0034 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 34 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868224069?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 94 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868224067; 14851-5_0094 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 94 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868224067?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 93 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868224056; 14851-5_0093 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 93 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868224056?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 90 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868224021; 14851-5_0090 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 90 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868224021?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 27 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868224012; 14851-5_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 27 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868224012?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 26 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868224004; 14851-5_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 26 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868224004?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 25 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868223996; 14851-5_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 25 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868223996?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 22 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868223989; 14851-5_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 22 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868223989?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2014-10-01&rft.volume=35&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=2495&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Research+in+Developmental+Disabilities&rft.issn=08914222&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.ridd.2014.06.016 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 21 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868223981; 14851-5_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 21 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868223981?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 20 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868223976; 14851-5_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 20 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868223976?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 16 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868223968; 14851-5_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 16 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868223968?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 15 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868223962; 14851-5_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868223962?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 14 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868223955; 14851-5_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868223955?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 12 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868223934; 14851-5_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868223934?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 30 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868223929; 14851-5_0030 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 30 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868223929?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 11 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868223925; 14851-5_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868223925?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 29 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868223923; 14851-5_0029 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 29 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868223923?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 10 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868223920; 14851-5_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868223920?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 28 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868223917; 14851-5_0028 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 28 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868223917?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 9 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868223913; 14851-5_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868223913?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 24 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868223910; 14851-5_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 24 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868223910?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 8 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868223905; 14851-5_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868223905?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 23 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868223901; 14851-5_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 23 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868223901?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 7 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868223890; 14851-5_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868223890?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 19 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868223886; 14851-5_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 19 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868223886?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 6 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868223872; 14851-5_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868223872?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 18 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868223869; 14851-5_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 18 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868223869?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 5 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868223859; 14851-5_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868223859?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 17 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868223856; 14851-5_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 17 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868223856?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 4 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868223841; 14851-5_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868223841?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 89 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868223795; 14851-5_0089 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 89 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868223795?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. [Part 4 of 61] T2 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. AN - 868223778; 14852-6_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 30 to 45 miles of rail line between the Port MacKenzie District in Matanuska-Susitna Borough and a point just north of Willow, Alaska are proposed. On December 5, 2008, the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) filed a petition for the Port MacKenzie rail extension to provide freight services between the deep-water port and Interior Alaska. Port MacKenzie is situated on nearly 9,000 acres of land and has an existing dockside bulk materials loading capacity with a conveyor system. Unlike similar port facilities that serve large, ocean-going vehicles, Port MacKenzie does not have rail service. Under the proposed action, ARRC would construct and operate a single-track rail line with a right-of-way (ROW) of 200 feet which would contain a power line, buried utility lines, and an access road. In addition, ARRC would construct one rail line siding within the exiting main line ROW at the tie-in location with the rail extension. The rail line would be constructed and maintained to Class 4 standards with a 60-mile-per-hour operating speed for freight service. Operations support facilities would be constructed and a terminal reserve area along the southern terminus of the line would eventually consist of yard sidings, storage areas, and a terminal building to support train maintenance. This final EIS considers 12 action alternatives based on two southern, three northern, and three connector segments. A No-Action Alternative is also considered. The environmentally preferred alternative is the Mac East Variant-Connector 3 Variant-Houston-Houston South Alternative. This alternative is located in an area of flat topography and would have a comparatively low level of potential impacts to most resources. The Mac East Variant Segment would begin in the terminal reserve area and would proceed north along the east side of the Point MacKenzie Agricultural Project before its junction with the Connector 3 Variant segment. The 5.47-mile-long connector segment would shift to the west and would cross Ayrshire Avenue and Farmers Road before continuing north of My Lake and crossing an adjacent ravine. From the Connector 3 Variant segment, the Houston Segment would proceed northeast, traveling through slightly undulating terrain with areas of wetland. The segment would pass between Papoose Twins and Crooked lakes, crossing an area of hilly terrain. The remaining four miles of the Houston Segment would be in a gradually rising wetland area to a point near Muleshoe and Little Horseshoe lakes, where it would connect to the Houston South Segment. This segment would traverse northeast, passing just west of Pear Lake and would tie into the existing main line near mile post 174.0 without crossing Parks Highway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve efficiency for freight shipping between Port MacKenzie and Interior Alaska and result in a temporary stimulus to the local economy and labor market with an estimated 66 to 100 workers added over a two-year construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the preferred alternative would involve crossings of floodplains, 19 culverts, two culvert extensions, two drainage structures, and two bridges. Culvert and bridge construction could degrade riparian areas with consequent loss of fish habitat, increase stages and velocities of floodwater, increase channel scour and downstream sedimentation, and change natural drainage. Other impacts would include: loss of 164 acres of wetlands; loss of 652 acres of wildlife habitat, including 223 acres of moose foraging habitat; long-term impact to forest communities; and potential impacts to 23 cultural resources. The Connector 3 segment would displace two structures. Seismic activity could misalign or damage tracks, the railbed, or the access road. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0148D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110096, Final EIS--943 pages, Appendices--1,066 pages, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Floodplains KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska 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/868223778?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 68 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868223776; 14851-5_0068 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 68 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868223776?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 88 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868223771; 14851-5_0088 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 88 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868223771?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. [Part 3 of 61] T2 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. AN - 868223767; 14852-6_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 30 to 45 miles of rail line between the Port MacKenzie District in Matanuska-Susitna Borough and a point just north of Willow, Alaska are proposed. On December 5, 2008, the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) filed a petition for the Port MacKenzie rail extension to provide freight services between the deep-water port and Interior Alaska. Port MacKenzie is situated on nearly 9,000 acres of land and has an existing dockside bulk materials loading capacity with a conveyor system. Unlike similar port facilities that serve large, ocean-going vehicles, Port MacKenzie does not have rail service. Under the proposed action, ARRC would construct and operate a single-track rail line with a right-of-way (ROW) of 200 feet which would contain a power line, buried utility lines, and an access road. In addition, ARRC would construct one rail line siding within the exiting main line ROW at the tie-in location with the rail extension. The rail line would be constructed and maintained to Class 4 standards with a 60-mile-per-hour operating speed for freight service. Operations support facilities would be constructed and a terminal reserve area along the southern terminus of the line would eventually consist of yard sidings, storage areas, and a terminal building to support train maintenance. This final EIS considers 12 action alternatives based on two southern, three northern, and three connector segments. A No-Action Alternative is also considered. The environmentally preferred alternative is the Mac East Variant-Connector 3 Variant-Houston-Houston South Alternative. This alternative is located in an area of flat topography and would have a comparatively low level of potential impacts to most resources. The Mac East Variant Segment would begin in the terminal reserve area and would proceed north along the east side of the Point MacKenzie Agricultural Project before its junction with the Connector 3 Variant segment. The 5.47-mile-long connector segment would shift to the west and would cross Ayrshire Avenue and Farmers Road before continuing north of My Lake and crossing an adjacent ravine. From the Connector 3 Variant segment, the Houston Segment would proceed northeast, traveling through slightly undulating terrain with areas of wetland. The segment would pass between Papoose Twins and Crooked lakes, crossing an area of hilly terrain. The remaining four miles of the Houston Segment would be in a gradually rising wetland area to a point near Muleshoe and Little Horseshoe lakes, where it would connect to the Houston South Segment. This segment would traverse northeast, passing just west of Pear Lake and would tie into the existing main line near mile post 174.0 without crossing Parks Highway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve efficiency for freight shipping between Port MacKenzie and Interior Alaska and result in a temporary stimulus to the local economy and labor market with an estimated 66 to 100 workers added over a two-year construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the preferred alternative would involve crossings of floodplains, 19 culverts, two culvert extensions, two drainage structures, and two bridges. Culvert and bridge construction could degrade riparian areas with consequent loss of fish habitat, increase stages and velocities of floodwater, increase channel scour and downstream sedimentation, and change natural drainage. Other impacts would include: loss of 164 acres of wetlands; loss of 652 acres of wildlife habitat, including 223 acres of moose foraging habitat; long-term impact to forest communities; and potential impacts to 23 cultural resources. The Connector 3 segment would displace two structures. Seismic activity could misalign or damage tracks, the railbed, or the access road. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0148D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110096, Final EIS--943 pages, Appendices--1,066 pages, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Floodplains KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska 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/868223767?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 67 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868223752; 14851-5_0067 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 67 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868223752?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 87 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868223746; 14851-5_0087 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 87 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868223746?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 3 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868223724; 14851-5_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868223724?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. [Part 31 of 61] T2 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. AN - 868223548; 14852-6_0031 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 30 to 45 miles of rail line between the Port MacKenzie District in Matanuska-Susitna Borough and a point just north of Willow, Alaska are proposed. On December 5, 2008, the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) filed a petition for the Port MacKenzie rail extension to provide freight services between the deep-water port and Interior Alaska. Port MacKenzie is situated on nearly 9,000 acres of land and has an existing dockside bulk materials loading capacity with a conveyor system. Unlike similar port facilities that serve large, ocean-going vehicles, Port MacKenzie does not have rail service. Under the proposed action, ARRC would construct and operate a single-track rail line with a right-of-way (ROW) of 200 feet which would contain a power line, buried utility lines, and an access road. In addition, ARRC would construct one rail line siding within the exiting main line ROW at the tie-in location with the rail extension. The rail line would be constructed and maintained to Class 4 standards with a 60-mile-per-hour operating speed for freight service. Operations support facilities would be constructed and a terminal reserve area along the southern terminus of the line would eventually consist of yard sidings, storage areas, and a terminal building to support train maintenance. This final EIS considers 12 action alternatives based on two southern, three northern, and three connector segments. A No-Action Alternative is also considered. The environmentally preferred alternative is the Mac East Variant-Connector 3 Variant-Houston-Houston South Alternative. This alternative is located in an area of flat topography and would have a comparatively low level of potential impacts to most resources. The Mac East Variant Segment would begin in the terminal reserve area and would proceed north along the east side of the Point MacKenzie Agricultural Project before its junction with the Connector 3 Variant segment. The 5.47-mile-long connector segment would shift to the west and would cross Ayrshire Avenue and Farmers Road before continuing north of My Lake and crossing an adjacent ravine. From the Connector 3 Variant segment, the Houston Segment would proceed northeast, traveling through slightly undulating terrain with areas of wetland. The segment would pass between Papoose Twins and Crooked lakes, crossing an area of hilly terrain. The remaining four miles of the Houston Segment would be in a gradually rising wetland area to a point near Muleshoe and Little Horseshoe lakes, where it would connect to the Houston South Segment. This segment would traverse northeast, passing just west of Pear Lake and would tie into the existing main line near mile post 174.0 without crossing Parks Highway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve efficiency for freight shipping between Port MacKenzie and Interior Alaska and result in a temporary stimulus to the local economy and labor market with an estimated 66 to 100 workers added over a two-year construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the preferred alternative would involve crossings of floodplains, 19 culverts, two culvert extensions, two drainage structures, and two bridges. Culvert and bridge construction could degrade riparian areas with consequent loss of fish habitat, increase stages and velocities of floodwater, increase channel scour and downstream sedimentation, and change natural drainage. Other impacts would include: loss of 164 acres of wetlands; loss of 652 acres of wildlife habitat, including 223 acres of moose foraging habitat; long-term impact to forest communities; and potential impacts to 23 cultural resources. The Connector 3 segment would displace two structures. Seismic activity could misalign or damage tracks, the railbed, or the access road. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0148D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110096, Final EIS--943 pages, Appendices--1,066 pages, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 31 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Floodplains KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska 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/868223548?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. [Part 30 of 61] T2 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. AN - 868223531; 14852-6_0030 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 30 to 45 miles of rail line between the Port MacKenzie District in Matanuska-Susitna Borough and a point just north of Willow, Alaska are proposed. On December 5, 2008, the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) filed a petition for the Port MacKenzie rail extension to provide freight services between the deep-water port and Interior Alaska. Port MacKenzie is situated on nearly 9,000 acres of land and has an existing dockside bulk materials loading capacity with a conveyor system. Unlike similar port facilities that serve large, ocean-going vehicles, Port MacKenzie does not have rail service. Under the proposed action, ARRC would construct and operate a single-track rail line with a right-of-way (ROW) of 200 feet which would contain a power line, buried utility lines, and an access road. In addition, ARRC would construct one rail line siding within the exiting main line ROW at the tie-in location with the rail extension. The rail line would be constructed and maintained to Class 4 standards with a 60-mile-per-hour operating speed for freight service. Operations support facilities would be constructed and a terminal reserve area along the southern terminus of the line would eventually consist of yard sidings, storage areas, and a terminal building to support train maintenance. This final EIS considers 12 action alternatives based on two southern, three northern, and three connector segments. A No-Action Alternative is also considered. The environmentally preferred alternative is the Mac East Variant-Connector 3 Variant-Houston-Houston South Alternative. This alternative is located in an area of flat topography and would have a comparatively low level of potential impacts to most resources. The Mac East Variant Segment would begin in the terminal reserve area and would proceed north along the east side of the Point MacKenzie Agricultural Project before its junction with the Connector 3 Variant segment. The 5.47-mile-long connector segment would shift to the west and would cross Ayrshire Avenue and Farmers Road before continuing north of My Lake and crossing an adjacent ravine. From the Connector 3 Variant segment, the Houston Segment would proceed northeast, traveling through slightly undulating terrain with areas of wetland. The segment would pass between Papoose Twins and Crooked lakes, crossing an area of hilly terrain. The remaining four miles of the Houston Segment would be in a gradually rising wetland area to a point near Muleshoe and Little Horseshoe lakes, where it would connect to the Houston South Segment. This segment would traverse northeast, passing just west of Pear Lake and would tie into the existing main line near mile post 174.0 without crossing Parks Highway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve efficiency for freight shipping between Port MacKenzie and Interior Alaska and result in a temporary stimulus to the local economy and labor market with an estimated 66 to 100 workers added over a two-year construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the preferred alternative would involve crossings of floodplains, 19 culverts, two culvert extensions, two drainage structures, and two bridges. Culvert and bridge construction could degrade riparian areas with consequent loss of fish habitat, increase stages and velocities of floodwater, increase channel scour and downstream sedimentation, and change natural drainage. Other impacts would include: loss of 164 acres of wetlands; loss of 652 acres of wildlife habitat, including 223 acres of moose foraging habitat; long-term impact to forest communities; and potential impacts to 23 cultural resources. The Connector 3 segment would displace two structures. Seismic activity could misalign or damage tracks, the railbed, or the access road. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0148D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110096, Final EIS--943 pages, Appendices--1,066 pages, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 30 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Floodplains KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska 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/868223531?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. [Part 29 of 61] T2 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. AN - 868223516; 14852-6_0029 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 30 to 45 miles of rail line between the Port MacKenzie District in Matanuska-Susitna Borough and a point just north of Willow, Alaska are proposed. On December 5, 2008, the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) filed a petition for the Port MacKenzie rail extension to provide freight services between the deep-water port and Interior Alaska. Port MacKenzie is situated on nearly 9,000 acres of land and has an existing dockside bulk materials loading capacity with a conveyor system. Unlike similar port facilities that serve large, ocean-going vehicles, Port MacKenzie does not have rail service. Under the proposed action, ARRC would construct and operate a single-track rail line with a right-of-way (ROW) of 200 feet which would contain a power line, buried utility lines, and an access road. In addition, ARRC would construct one rail line siding within the exiting main line ROW at the tie-in location with the rail extension. The rail line would be constructed and maintained to Class 4 standards with a 60-mile-per-hour operating speed for freight service. Operations support facilities would be constructed and a terminal reserve area along the southern terminus of the line would eventually consist of yard sidings, storage areas, and a terminal building to support train maintenance. This final EIS considers 12 action alternatives based on two southern, three northern, and three connector segments. A No-Action Alternative is also considered. The environmentally preferred alternative is the Mac East Variant-Connector 3 Variant-Houston-Houston South Alternative. This alternative is located in an area of flat topography and would have a comparatively low level of potential impacts to most resources. The Mac East Variant Segment would begin in the terminal reserve area and would proceed north along the east side of the Point MacKenzie Agricultural Project before its junction with the Connector 3 Variant segment. The 5.47-mile-long connector segment would shift to the west and would cross Ayrshire Avenue and Farmers Road before continuing north of My Lake and crossing an adjacent ravine. From the Connector 3 Variant segment, the Houston Segment would proceed northeast, traveling through slightly undulating terrain with areas of wetland. The segment would pass between Papoose Twins and Crooked lakes, crossing an area of hilly terrain. The remaining four miles of the Houston Segment would be in a gradually rising wetland area to a point near Muleshoe and Little Horseshoe lakes, where it would connect to the Houston South Segment. This segment would traverse northeast, passing just west of Pear Lake and would tie into the existing main line near mile post 174.0 without crossing Parks Highway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve efficiency for freight shipping between Port MacKenzie and Interior Alaska and result in a temporary stimulus to the local economy and labor market with an estimated 66 to 100 workers added over a two-year construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the preferred alternative would involve crossings of floodplains, 19 culverts, two culvert extensions, two drainage structures, and two bridges. Culvert and bridge construction could degrade riparian areas with consequent loss of fish habitat, increase stages and velocities of floodwater, increase channel scour and downstream sedimentation, and change natural drainage. Other impacts would include: loss of 164 acres of wetlands; loss of 652 acres of wildlife habitat, including 223 acres of moose foraging habitat; long-term impact to forest communities; and potential impacts to 23 cultural resources. The Connector 3 segment would displace two structures. Seismic activity could misalign or damage tracks, the railbed, or the access road. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0148D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110096, Final EIS--943 pages, Appendices--1,066 pages, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 29 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Floodplains KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska 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/868223516?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. [Part 27 of 61] T2 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. AN - 868223499; 14852-6_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 30 to 45 miles of rail line between the Port MacKenzie District in Matanuska-Susitna Borough and a point just north of Willow, Alaska are proposed. On December 5, 2008, the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) filed a petition for the Port MacKenzie rail extension to provide freight services between the deep-water port and Interior Alaska. Port MacKenzie is situated on nearly 9,000 acres of land and has an existing dockside bulk materials loading capacity with a conveyor system. Unlike similar port facilities that serve large, ocean-going vehicles, Port MacKenzie does not have rail service. Under the proposed action, ARRC would construct and operate a single-track rail line with a right-of-way (ROW) of 200 feet which would contain a power line, buried utility lines, and an access road. In addition, ARRC would construct one rail line siding within the exiting main line ROW at the tie-in location with the rail extension. The rail line would be constructed and maintained to Class 4 standards with a 60-mile-per-hour operating speed for freight service. Operations support facilities would be constructed and a terminal reserve area along the southern terminus of the line would eventually consist of yard sidings, storage areas, and a terminal building to support train maintenance. This final EIS considers 12 action alternatives based on two southern, three northern, and three connector segments. A No-Action Alternative is also considered. The environmentally preferred alternative is the Mac East Variant-Connector 3 Variant-Houston-Houston South Alternative. This alternative is located in an area of flat topography and would have a comparatively low level of potential impacts to most resources. The Mac East Variant Segment would begin in the terminal reserve area and would proceed north along the east side of the Point MacKenzie Agricultural Project before its junction with the Connector 3 Variant segment. The 5.47-mile-long connector segment would shift to the west and would cross Ayrshire Avenue and Farmers Road before continuing north of My Lake and crossing an adjacent ravine. From the Connector 3 Variant segment, the Houston Segment would proceed northeast, traveling through slightly undulating terrain with areas of wetland. The segment would pass between Papoose Twins and Crooked lakes, crossing an area of hilly terrain. The remaining four miles of the Houston Segment would be in a gradually rising wetland area to a point near Muleshoe and Little Horseshoe lakes, where it would connect to the Houston South Segment. This segment would traverse northeast, passing just west of Pear Lake and would tie into the existing main line near mile post 174.0 without crossing Parks Highway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve efficiency for freight shipping between Port MacKenzie and Interior Alaska and result in a temporary stimulus to the local economy and labor market with an estimated 66 to 100 workers added over a two-year construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the preferred alternative would involve crossings of floodplains, 19 culverts, two culvert extensions, two drainage structures, and two bridges. Culvert and bridge construction could degrade riparian areas with consequent loss of fish habitat, increase stages and velocities of floodwater, increase channel scour and downstream sedimentation, and change natural drainage. Other impacts would include: loss of 164 acres of wetlands; loss of 652 acres of wildlife habitat, including 223 acres of moose foraging habitat; long-term impact to forest communities; and potential impacts to 23 cultural resources. The Connector 3 segment would displace two structures. Seismic activity could misalign or damage tracks, the railbed, or the access road. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0148D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110096, Final EIS--943 pages, Appendices--1,066 pages, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 27 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Floodplains KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska 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/868223499?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. [Part 26 of 61] T2 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. AN - 868223481; 14852-6_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 30 to 45 miles of rail line between the Port MacKenzie District in Matanuska-Susitna Borough and a point just north of Willow, Alaska are proposed. On December 5, 2008, the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) filed a petition for the Port MacKenzie rail extension to provide freight services between the deep-water port and Interior Alaska. Port MacKenzie is situated on nearly 9,000 acres of land and has an existing dockside bulk materials loading capacity with a conveyor system. Unlike similar port facilities that serve large, ocean-going vehicles, Port MacKenzie does not have rail service. Under the proposed action, ARRC would construct and operate a single-track rail line with a right-of-way (ROW) of 200 feet which would contain a power line, buried utility lines, and an access road. In addition, ARRC would construct one rail line siding within the exiting main line ROW at the tie-in location with the rail extension. The rail line would be constructed and maintained to Class 4 standards with a 60-mile-per-hour operating speed for freight service. Operations support facilities would be constructed and a terminal reserve area along the southern terminus of the line would eventually consist of yard sidings, storage areas, and a terminal building to support train maintenance. This final EIS considers 12 action alternatives based on two southern, three northern, and three connector segments. A No-Action Alternative is also considered. The environmentally preferred alternative is the Mac East Variant-Connector 3 Variant-Houston-Houston South Alternative. This alternative is located in an area of flat topography and would have a comparatively low level of potential impacts to most resources. The Mac East Variant Segment would begin in the terminal reserve area and would proceed north along the east side of the Point MacKenzie Agricultural Project before its junction with the Connector 3 Variant segment. The 5.47-mile-long connector segment would shift to the west and would cross Ayrshire Avenue and Farmers Road before continuing north of My Lake and crossing an adjacent ravine. From the Connector 3 Variant segment, the Houston Segment would proceed northeast, traveling through slightly undulating terrain with areas of wetland. The segment would pass between Papoose Twins and Crooked lakes, crossing an area of hilly terrain. The remaining four miles of the Houston Segment would be in a gradually rising wetland area to a point near Muleshoe and Little Horseshoe lakes, where it would connect to the Houston South Segment. This segment would traverse northeast, passing just west of Pear Lake and would tie into the existing main line near mile post 174.0 without crossing Parks Highway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve efficiency for freight shipping between Port MacKenzie and Interior Alaska and result in a temporary stimulus to the local economy and labor market with an estimated 66 to 100 workers added over a two-year construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the preferred alternative would involve crossings of floodplains, 19 culverts, two culvert extensions, two drainage structures, and two bridges. Culvert and bridge construction could degrade riparian areas with consequent loss of fish habitat, increase stages and velocities of floodwater, increase channel scour and downstream sedimentation, and change natural drainage. Other impacts would include: loss of 164 acres of wetlands; loss of 652 acres of wildlife habitat, including 223 acres of moose foraging habitat; long-term impact to forest communities; and potential impacts to 23 cultural resources. The Connector 3 segment would displace two structures. Seismic activity could misalign or damage tracks, the railbed, or the access road. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0148D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110096, Final EIS--943 pages, Appendices--1,066 pages, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 26 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Floodplains KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska 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/868223481?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. [Part 25 of 61] T2 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. AN - 868223466; 14852-6_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 30 to 45 miles of rail line between the Port MacKenzie District in Matanuska-Susitna Borough and a point just north of Willow, Alaska are proposed. On December 5, 2008, the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) filed a petition for the Port MacKenzie rail extension to provide freight services between the deep-water port and Interior Alaska. Port MacKenzie is situated on nearly 9,000 acres of land and has an existing dockside bulk materials loading capacity with a conveyor system. Unlike similar port facilities that serve large, ocean-going vehicles, Port MacKenzie does not have rail service. Under the proposed action, ARRC would construct and operate a single-track rail line with a right-of-way (ROW) of 200 feet which would contain a power line, buried utility lines, and an access road. In addition, ARRC would construct one rail line siding within the exiting main line ROW at the tie-in location with the rail extension. The rail line would be constructed and maintained to Class 4 standards with a 60-mile-per-hour operating speed for freight service. Operations support facilities would be constructed and a terminal reserve area along the southern terminus of the line would eventually consist of yard sidings, storage areas, and a terminal building to support train maintenance. This final EIS considers 12 action alternatives based on two southern, three northern, and three connector segments. A No-Action Alternative is also considered. The environmentally preferred alternative is the Mac East Variant-Connector 3 Variant-Houston-Houston South Alternative. This alternative is located in an area of flat topography and would have a comparatively low level of potential impacts to most resources. The Mac East Variant Segment would begin in the terminal reserve area and would proceed north along the east side of the Point MacKenzie Agricultural Project before its junction with the Connector 3 Variant segment. The 5.47-mile-long connector segment would shift to the west and would cross Ayrshire Avenue and Farmers Road before continuing north of My Lake and crossing an adjacent ravine. From the Connector 3 Variant segment, the Houston Segment would proceed northeast, traveling through slightly undulating terrain with areas of wetland. The segment would pass between Papoose Twins and Crooked lakes, crossing an area of hilly terrain. The remaining four miles of the Houston Segment would be in a gradually rising wetland area to a point near Muleshoe and Little Horseshoe lakes, where it would connect to the Houston South Segment. This segment would traverse northeast, passing just west of Pear Lake and would tie into the existing main line near mile post 174.0 without crossing Parks Highway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve efficiency for freight shipping between Port MacKenzie and Interior Alaska and result in a temporary stimulus to the local economy and labor market with an estimated 66 to 100 workers added over a two-year construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the preferred alternative would involve crossings of floodplains, 19 culverts, two culvert extensions, two drainage structures, and two bridges. Culvert and bridge construction could degrade riparian areas with consequent loss of fish habitat, increase stages and velocities of floodwater, increase channel scour and downstream sedimentation, and change natural drainage. Other impacts would include: loss of 164 acres of wetlands; loss of 652 acres of wildlife habitat, including 223 acres of moose foraging habitat; long-term impact to forest communities; and potential impacts to 23 cultural resources. The Connector 3 segment would displace two structures. Seismic activity could misalign or damage tracks, the railbed, or the access road. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0148D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110096, Final EIS--943 pages, Appendices--1,066 pages, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 25 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Floodplains KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska 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/868223466?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 74 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868223465; 14851-5_0074 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 74 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868223465?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. [Part 20 of 61] T2 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. AN - 868223450; 14852-6_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 30 to 45 miles of rail line between the Port MacKenzie District in Matanuska-Susitna Borough and a point just north of Willow, Alaska are proposed. On December 5, 2008, the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) filed a petition for the Port MacKenzie rail extension to provide freight services between the deep-water port and Interior Alaska. Port MacKenzie is situated on nearly 9,000 acres of land and has an existing dockside bulk materials loading capacity with a conveyor system. Unlike similar port facilities that serve large, ocean-going vehicles, Port MacKenzie does not have rail service. Under the proposed action, ARRC would construct and operate a single-track rail line with a right-of-way (ROW) of 200 feet which would contain a power line, buried utility lines, and an access road. In addition, ARRC would construct one rail line siding within the exiting main line ROW at the tie-in location with the rail extension. The rail line would be constructed and maintained to Class 4 standards with a 60-mile-per-hour operating speed for freight service. Operations support facilities would be constructed and a terminal reserve area along the southern terminus of the line would eventually consist of yard sidings, storage areas, and a terminal building to support train maintenance. This final EIS considers 12 action alternatives based on two southern, three northern, and three connector segments. A No-Action Alternative is also considered. The environmentally preferred alternative is the Mac East Variant-Connector 3 Variant-Houston-Houston South Alternative. This alternative is located in an area of flat topography and would have a comparatively low level of potential impacts to most resources. The Mac East Variant Segment would begin in the terminal reserve area and would proceed north along the east side of the Point MacKenzie Agricultural Project before its junction with the Connector 3 Variant segment. The 5.47-mile-long connector segment would shift to the west and would cross Ayrshire Avenue and Farmers Road before continuing north of My Lake and crossing an adjacent ravine. From the Connector 3 Variant segment, the Houston Segment would proceed northeast, traveling through slightly undulating terrain with areas of wetland. The segment would pass between Papoose Twins and Crooked lakes, crossing an area of hilly terrain. The remaining four miles of the Houston Segment would be in a gradually rising wetland area to a point near Muleshoe and Little Horseshoe lakes, where it would connect to the Houston South Segment. This segment would traverse northeast, passing just west of Pear Lake and would tie into the existing main line near mile post 174.0 without crossing Parks Highway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve efficiency for freight shipping between Port MacKenzie and Interior Alaska and result in a temporary stimulus to the local economy and labor market with an estimated 66 to 100 workers added over a two-year construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the preferred alternative would involve crossings of floodplains, 19 culverts, two culvert extensions, two drainage structures, and two bridges. Culvert and bridge construction could degrade riparian areas with consequent loss of fish habitat, increase stages and velocities of floodwater, increase channel scour and downstream sedimentation, and change natural drainage. Other impacts would include: loss of 164 acres of wetlands; loss of 652 acres of wildlife habitat, including 223 acres of moose foraging habitat; long-term impact to forest communities; and potential impacts to 23 cultural resources. The Connector 3 segment would displace two structures. Seismic activity could misalign or damage tracks, the railbed, or the access road. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0148D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110096, Final EIS--943 pages, Appendices--1,066 pages, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 20 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Floodplains KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska 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/868223450?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 73 of 96] T2 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 868223445; 14851-5_0073 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 73 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/868223445?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. [Part 43 of 61] T2 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. AN - 868223327; 14852-6_0043 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 30 to 45 miles of rail line between the Port MacKenzie District in Matanuska-Susitna Borough and a point just north of Willow, Alaska are proposed. On December 5, 2008, the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) filed a petition for the Port MacKenzie rail extension to provide freight services between the deep-water port and Interior Alaska. Port MacKenzie is situated on nearly 9,000 acres of land and has an existing dockside bulk materials loading capacity with a conveyor system. Unlike similar port facilities that serve large, ocean-going vehicles, Port MacKenzie does not have rail service. Under the proposed action, ARRC would construct and operate a single-track rail line with a right-of-way (ROW) of 200 feet which would contain a power line, buried utility lines, and an access road. In addition, ARRC would construct one rail line siding within the exiting main line ROW at the tie-in location with the rail extension. The rail line would be constructed and maintained to Class 4 standards with a 60-mile-per-hour operating speed for freight service. Operations support facilities would be constructed and a terminal reserve area along the southern terminus of the line would eventually consist of yard sidings, storage areas, and a terminal building to support train maintenance. This final EIS considers 12 action alternatives based on two southern, three northern, and three connector segments. A No-Action Alternative is also considered. The environmentally preferred alternative is the Mac East Variant-Connector 3 Variant-Houston-Houston South Alternative. This alternative is located in an area of flat topography and would have a comparatively low level of potential impacts to most resources. The Mac East Variant Segment would begin in the terminal reserve area and would proceed north along the east side of the Point MacKenzie Agricultural Project before its junction with the Connector 3 Variant segment. The 5.47-mile-long connector segment would shift to the west and would cross Ayrshire Avenue and Farmers Road before continuing north of My Lake and crossing an adjacent ravine. From the Connector 3 Variant segment, the Houston Segment would proceed northeast, traveling through slightly undulating terrain with areas of wetland. The segment would pass between Papoose Twins and Crooked lakes, crossing an area of hilly terrain. The remaining four miles of the Houston Segment would be in a gradually rising wetland area to a point near Muleshoe and Little Horseshoe lakes, where it would connect to the Houston South Segment. This segment would traverse northeast, passing just west of Pear Lake and would tie into the existing main line near mile post 174.0 without crossing Parks Highway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve efficiency for freight shipping between Port MacKenzie and Interior Alaska and result in a temporary stimulus to the local economy and labor market with an estimated 66 to 100 workers added over a two-year construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the preferred alternative would involve crossings of floodplains, 19 culverts, two culvert extensions, two drainage structures, and two bridges. Culvert and bridge construction could degrade riparian areas with consequent loss of fish habitat, increase stages and velocities of floodwater, increase channel scour and downstream sedimentation, and change natural drainage. Other impacts would include: loss of 164 acres of wetlands; loss of 652 acres of wildlife habitat, including 223 acres of moose foraging habitat; long-term impact to forest communities; and potential impacts to 23 cultural resources. The Connector 3 segment would displace two structures. Seismic activity could misalign or damage tracks, the railbed, or the access road. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0148D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110096, Final EIS--943 pages, Appendices--1,066 pages, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 43 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Floodplains KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska 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/868223327?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. [Part 42 of 61] T2 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. AN - 868223315; 14852-6_0042 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 30 to 45 miles of rail line between the Port MacKenzie District in Matanuska-Susitna Borough and a point just north of Willow, Alaska are proposed. On December 5, 2008, the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) filed a petition for the Port MacKenzie rail extension to provide freight services between the deep-water port and Interior Alaska. Port MacKenzie is situated on nearly 9,000 acres of land and has an existing dockside bulk materials loading capacity with a conveyor system. Unlike similar port facilities that serve large, ocean-going vehicles, Port MacKenzie does not have rail service. Under the proposed action, ARRC would construct and operate a single-track rail line with a right-of-way (ROW) of 200 feet which would contain a power line, buried utility lines, and an access road. In addition, ARRC would construct one rail line siding within the exiting main line ROW at the tie-in location with the rail extension. The rail line would be constructed and maintained to Class 4 standards with a 60-mile-per-hour operating speed for freight service. Operations support facilities would be constructed and a terminal reserve area along the southern terminus of the line would eventually consist of yard sidings, storage areas, and a terminal building to support train maintenance. This final EIS considers 12 action alternatives based on two southern, three northern, and three connector segments. A No-Action Alternative is also considered. The environmentally preferred alternative is the Mac East Variant-Connector 3 Variant-Houston-Houston South Alternative. This alternative is located in an area of flat topography and would have a comparatively low level of potential impacts to most resources. The Mac East Variant Segment would begin in the terminal reserve area and would proceed north along the east side of the Point MacKenzie Agricultural Project before its junction with the Connector 3 Variant segment. The 5.47-mile-long connector segment would shift to the west and would cross Ayrshire Avenue and Farmers Road before continuing north of My Lake and crossing an adjacent ravine. From the Connector 3 Variant segment, the Houston Segment would proceed northeast, traveling through slightly undulating terrain with areas of wetland. The segment would pass between Papoose Twins and Crooked lakes, crossing an area of hilly terrain. The remaining four miles of the Houston Segment would be in a gradually rising wetland area to a point near Muleshoe and Little Horseshoe lakes, where it would connect to the Houston South Segment. This segment would traverse northeast, passing just west of Pear Lake and would tie into the existing main line near mile post 174.0 without crossing Parks Highway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve efficiency for freight shipping between Port MacKenzie and Interior Alaska and result in a temporary stimulus to the local economy and labor market with an estimated 66 to 100 workers added over a two-year construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the preferred alternative would involve crossings of floodplains, 19 culverts, two culvert extensions, two drainage structures, and two bridges. Culvert and bridge construction could degrade riparian areas with consequent loss of fish habitat, increase stages and velocities of floodwater, increase channel scour and downstream sedimentation, and change natural drainage. Other impacts would include: loss of 164 acres of wetlands; loss of 652 acres of wildlife habitat, including 223 acres of moose foraging habitat; long-term impact to forest communities; and potential impacts to 23 cultural resources. The Connector 3 segment would displace two structures. Seismic activity could misalign or damage tracks, the railbed, or the access road. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0148D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110096, Final EIS--943 pages, Appendices--1,066 pages, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 42 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Floodplains KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska 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/868223315?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. [Part 37 of 61] T2 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. AN - 868223274; 14852-6_0037 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 30 to 45 miles of rail line between the Port MacKenzie District in Matanuska-Susitna Borough and a point just north of Willow, Alaska are proposed. On December 5, 2008, the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) filed a petition for the Port MacKenzie rail extension to provide freight services between the deep-water port and Interior Alaska. Port MacKenzie is situated on nearly 9,000 acres of land and has an existing dockside bulk materials loading capacity with a conveyor system. Unlike similar port facilities that serve large, ocean-going vehicles, Port MacKenzie does not have rail service. Under the proposed action, ARRC would construct and operate a single-track rail line with a right-of-way (ROW) of 200 feet which would contain a power line, buried utility lines, and an access road. In addition, ARRC would construct one rail line siding within the exiting main line ROW at the tie-in location with the rail extension. The rail line would be constructed and maintained to Class 4 standards with a 60-mile-per-hour operating speed for freight service. Operations support facilities would be constructed and a terminal reserve area along the southern terminus of the line would eventually consist of yard sidings, storage areas, and a terminal building to support train maintenance. This final EIS considers 12 action alternatives based on two southern, three northern, and three connector segments. A No-Action Alternative is also considered. The environmentally preferred alternative is the Mac East Variant-Connector 3 Variant-Houston-Houston South Alternative. This alternative is located in an area of flat topography and would have a comparatively low level of potential impacts to most resources. The Mac East Variant Segment would begin in the terminal reserve area and would proceed north along the east side of the Point MacKenzie Agricultural Project before its junction with the Connector 3 Variant segment. The 5.47-mile-long connector segment would shift to the west and would cross Ayrshire Avenue and Farmers Road before continuing north of My Lake and crossing an adjacent ravine. From the Connector 3 Variant segment, the Houston Segment would proceed northeast, traveling through slightly undulating terrain with areas of wetland. The segment would pass between Papoose Twins and Crooked lakes, crossing an area of hilly terrain. The remaining four miles of the Houston Segment would be in a gradually rising wetland area to a point near Muleshoe and Little Horseshoe lakes, where it would connect to the Houston South Segment. This segment would traverse northeast, passing just west of Pear Lake and would tie into the existing main line near mile post 174.0 without crossing Parks Highway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve efficiency for freight shipping between Port MacKenzie and Interior Alaska and result in a temporary stimulus to the local economy and labor market with an estimated 66 to 100 workers added over a two-year construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the preferred alternative would involve crossings of floodplains, 19 culverts, two culvert extensions, two drainage structures, and two bridges. Culvert and bridge construction could degrade riparian areas with consequent loss of fish habitat, increase stages and velocities of floodwater, increase channel scour and downstream sedimentation, and change natural drainage. Other impacts would include: loss of 164 acres of wetlands; loss of 652 acres of wildlife habitat, including 223 acres of moose foraging habitat; long-term impact to forest communities; and potential impacts to 23 cultural resources. The Connector 3 segment would displace two structures. Seismic activity could misalign or damage tracks, the railbed, or the access road. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0148D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110096, Final EIS--943 pages, Appendices--1,066 pages, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 37 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Floodplains KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska 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/868223274?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. [Part 1 of 61] T2 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. AN - 868223261; 14852-6_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 30 to 45 miles of rail line between the Port MacKenzie District in Matanuska-Susitna Borough and a point just north of Willow, Alaska are proposed. On December 5, 2008, the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) filed a petition for the Port MacKenzie rail extension to provide freight services between the deep-water port and Interior Alaska. Port MacKenzie is situated on nearly 9,000 acres of land and has an existing dockside bulk materials loading capacity with a conveyor system. Unlike similar port facilities that serve large, ocean-going vehicles, Port MacKenzie does not have rail service. Under the proposed action, ARRC would construct and operate a single-track rail line with a right-of-way (ROW) of 200 feet which would contain a power line, buried utility lines, and an access road. In addition, ARRC would construct one rail line siding within the exiting main line ROW at the tie-in location with the rail extension. The rail line would be constructed and maintained to Class 4 standards with a 60-mile-per-hour operating speed for freight service. Operations support facilities would be constructed and a terminal reserve area along the southern terminus of the line would eventually consist of yard sidings, storage areas, and a terminal building to support train maintenance. This final EIS considers 12 action alternatives based on two southern, three northern, and three connector segments. A No-Action Alternative is also considered. The environmentally preferred alternative is the Mac East Variant-Connector 3 Variant-Houston-Houston South Alternative. This alternative is located in an area of flat topography and would have a comparatively low level of potential impacts to most resources. The Mac East Variant Segment would begin in the terminal reserve area and would proceed north along the east side of the Point MacKenzie Agricultural Project before its junction with the Connector 3 Variant segment. The 5.47-mile-long connector segment would shift to the west and would cross Ayrshire Avenue and Farmers Road before continuing north of My Lake and crossing an adjacent ravine. From the Connector 3 Variant segment, the Houston Segment would proceed northeast, traveling through slightly undulating terrain with areas of wetland. The segment would pass between Papoose Twins and Crooked lakes, crossing an area of hilly terrain. The remaining four miles of the Houston Segment would be in a gradually rising wetland area to a point near Muleshoe and Little Horseshoe lakes, where it would connect to the Houston South Segment. This segment would traverse northeast, passing just west of Pear Lake and would tie into the existing main line near mile post 174.0 without crossing Parks Highway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve efficiency for freight shipping between Port MacKenzie and Interior Alaska and result in a temporary stimulus to the local economy and labor market with an estimated 66 to 100 workers added over a two-year construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the preferred alternative would involve crossings of floodplains, 19 culverts, two culvert extensions, two drainage structures, and two bridges. Culvert and bridge construction could degrade riparian areas with consequent loss of fish habitat, increase stages and velocities of floodwater, increase channel scour and downstream sedimentation, and change natural drainage. Other impacts would include: loss of 164 acres of wetlands; loss of 652 acres of wildlife habitat, including 223 acres of moose foraging habitat; long-term impact to forest communities; and potential impacts to 23 cultural resources. The Connector 3 segment would displace two structures. Seismic activity could misalign or damage tracks, the railbed, or the access road. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0148D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110096, Final EIS--943 pages, Appendices--1,066 pages, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Floodplains KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska 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/868223261?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. [Part 24 of 61] T2 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. AN - 868223103; 14852-6_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 30 to 45 miles of rail line between the Port MacKenzie District in Matanuska-Susitna Borough and a point just north of Willow, Alaska are proposed. On December 5, 2008, the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) filed a petition for the Port MacKenzie rail extension to provide freight services between the deep-water port and Interior Alaska. Port MacKenzie is situated on nearly 9,000 acres of land and has an existing dockside bulk materials loading capacity with a conveyor system. Unlike similar port facilities that serve large, ocean-going vehicles, Port MacKenzie does not have rail service. Under the proposed action, ARRC would construct and operate a single-track rail line with a right-of-way (ROW) of 200 feet which would contain a power line, buried utility lines, and an access road. In addition, ARRC would construct one rail line siding within the exiting main line ROW at the tie-in location with the rail extension. The rail line would be constructed and maintained to Class 4 standards with a 60-mile-per-hour operating speed for freight service. Operations support facilities would be constructed and a terminal reserve area along the southern terminus of the line would eventually consist of yard sidings, storage areas, and a terminal building to support train maintenance. This final EIS considers 12 action alternatives based on two southern, three northern, and three connector segments. A No-Action Alternative is also considered. The environmentally preferred alternative is the Mac East Variant-Connector 3 Variant-Houston-Houston South Alternative. This alternative is located in an area of flat topography and would have a comparatively low level of potential impacts to most resources. The Mac East Variant Segment would begin in the terminal reserve area and would proceed north along the east side of the Point MacKenzie Agricultural Project before its junction with the Connector 3 Variant segment. The 5.47-mile-long connector segment would shift to the west and would cross Ayrshire Avenue and Farmers Road before continuing north of My Lake and crossing an adjacent ravine. From the Connector 3 Variant segment, the Houston Segment would proceed northeast, traveling through slightly undulating terrain with areas of wetland. The segment would pass between Papoose Twins and Crooked lakes, crossing an area of hilly terrain. The remaining four miles of the Houston Segment would be in a gradually rising wetland area to a point near Muleshoe and Little Horseshoe lakes, where it would connect to the Houston South Segment. This segment would traverse northeast, passing just west of Pear Lake and would tie into the existing main line near mile post 174.0 without crossing Parks Highway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve efficiency for freight shipping between Port MacKenzie and Interior Alaska and result in a temporary stimulus to the local economy and labor market with an estimated 66 to 100 workers added over a two-year construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the preferred alternative would involve crossings of floodplains, 19 culverts, two culvert extensions, two drainage structures, and two bridges. Culvert and bridge construction could degrade riparian areas with consequent loss of fish habitat, increase stages and velocities of floodwater, increase channel scour and downstream sedimentation, and change natural drainage. Other impacts would include: loss of 164 acres of wetlands; loss of 652 acres of wildlife habitat, including 223 acres of moose foraging habitat; long-term impact to forest communities; and potential impacts to 23 cultural resources. The Connector 3 segment would displace two structures. Seismic activity could misalign or damage tracks, the railbed, or the access road. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0148D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110096, Final EIS--943 pages, Appendices--1,066 pages, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 24 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Floodplains KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska 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/868223103?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. [Part 22 of 61] T2 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. AN - 868223029; 14852-6_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 30 to 45 miles of rail line between the Port MacKenzie District in Matanuska-Susitna Borough and a point just north of Willow, Alaska are proposed. On December 5, 2008, the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) filed a petition for the Port MacKenzie rail extension to provide freight services between the deep-water port and Interior Alaska. Port MacKenzie is situated on nearly 9,000 acres of land and has an existing dockside bulk materials loading capacity with a conveyor system. Unlike similar port facilities that serve large, ocean-going vehicles, Port MacKenzie does not have rail service. Under the proposed action, ARRC would construct and operate a single-track rail line with a right-of-way (ROW) of 200 feet which would contain a power line, buried utility lines, and an access road. In addition, ARRC would construct one rail line siding within the exiting main line ROW at the tie-in location with the rail extension. The rail line would be constructed and maintained to Class 4 standards with a 60-mile-per-hour operating speed for freight service. Operations support facilities would be constructed and a terminal reserve area along the southern terminus of the line would eventually consist of yard sidings, storage areas, and a terminal building to support train maintenance. This final EIS considers 12 action alternatives based on two southern, three northern, and three connector segments. A No-Action Alternative is also considered. The environmentally preferred alternative is the Mac East Variant-Connector 3 Variant-Houston-Houston South Alternative. This alternative is located in an area of flat topography and would have a comparatively low level of potential impacts to most resources. The Mac East Variant Segment would begin in the terminal reserve area and would proceed north along the east side of the Point MacKenzie Agricultural Project before its junction with the Connector 3 Variant segment. The 5.47-mile-long connector segment would shift to the west and would cross Ayrshire Avenue and Farmers Road before continuing north of My Lake and crossing an adjacent ravine. From the Connector 3 Variant segment, the Houston Segment would proceed northeast, traveling through slightly undulating terrain with areas of wetland. The segment would pass between Papoose Twins and Crooked lakes, crossing an area of hilly terrain. The remaining four miles of the Houston Segment would be in a gradually rising wetland area to a point near Muleshoe and Little Horseshoe lakes, where it would connect to the Houston South Segment. This segment would traverse northeast, passing just west of Pear Lake and would tie into the existing main line near mile post 174.0 without crossing Parks Highway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve efficiency for freight shipping between Port MacKenzie and Interior Alaska and result in a temporary stimulus to the local economy and labor market with an estimated 66 to 100 workers added over a two-year construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the preferred alternative would involve crossings of floodplains, 19 culverts, two culvert extensions, two drainage structures, and two bridges. Culvert and bridge construction could degrade riparian areas with consequent loss of fish habitat, increase stages and velocities of floodwater, increase channel scour and downstream sedimentation, and change natural drainage. Other impacts would include: loss of 164 acres of wetlands; loss of 652 acres of wildlife habitat, including 223 acres of moose foraging habitat; long-term impact to forest communities; and potential impacts to 23 cultural resources. The Connector 3 segment would displace two structures. Seismic activity could misalign or damage tracks, the railbed, or the access road. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0148D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110096, Final EIS--943 pages, Appendices--1,066 pages, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 22 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Floodplains KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska 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/868223029?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. [Part 21 of 61] T2 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. AN - 868222998; 14852-6_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 30 to 45 miles of rail line between the Port MacKenzie District in Matanuska-Susitna Borough and a point just north of Willow, Alaska are proposed. On December 5, 2008, the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) filed a petition for the Port MacKenzie rail extension to provide freight services between the deep-water port and Interior Alaska. Port MacKenzie is situated on nearly 9,000 acres of land and has an existing dockside bulk materials loading capacity with a conveyor system. Unlike similar port facilities that serve large, ocean-going vehicles, Port MacKenzie does not have rail service. Under the proposed action, ARRC would construct and operate a single-track rail line with a right-of-way (ROW) of 200 feet which would contain a power line, buried utility lines, and an access road. In addition, ARRC would construct one rail line siding within the exiting main line ROW at the tie-in location with the rail extension. The rail line would be constructed and maintained to Class 4 standards with a 60-mile-per-hour operating speed for freight service. Operations support facilities would be constructed and a terminal reserve area along the southern terminus of the line would eventually consist of yard sidings, storage areas, and a terminal building to support train maintenance. This final EIS considers 12 action alternatives based on two southern, three northern, and three connector segments. A No-Action Alternative is also considered. The environmentally preferred alternative is the Mac East Variant-Connector 3 Variant-Houston-Houston South Alternative. This alternative is located in an area of flat topography and would have a comparatively low level of potential impacts to most resources. The Mac East Variant Segment would begin in the terminal reserve area and would proceed north along the east side of the Point MacKenzie Agricultural Project before its junction with the Connector 3 Variant segment. The 5.47-mile-long connector segment would shift to the west and would cross Ayrshire Avenue and Farmers Road before continuing north of My Lake and crossing an adjacent ravine. From the Connector 3 Variant segment, the Houston Segment would proceed northeast, traveling through slightly undulating terrain with areas of wetland. The segment would pass between Papoose Twins and Crooked lakes, crossing an area of hilly terrain. The remaining four miles of the Houston Segment would be in a gradually rising wetland area to a point near Muleshoe and Little Horseshoe lakes, where it would connect to the Houston South Segment. This segment would traverse northeast, passing just west of Pear Lake and would tie into the existing main line near mile post 174.0 without crossing Parks Highway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve efficiency for freight shipping between Port MacKenzie and Interior Alaska and result in a temporary stimulus to the local economy and labor market with an estimated 66 to 100 workers added over a two-year construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the preferred alternative would involve crossings of floodplains, 19 culverts, two culvert extensions, two drainage structures, and two bridges. Culvert and bridge construction could degrade riparian areas with consequent loss of fish habitat, increase stages and velocities of floodwater, increase channel scour and downstream sedimentation, and change natural drainage. Other impacts would include: loss of 164 acres of wetlands; loss of 652 acres of wildlife habitat, including 223 acres of moose foraging habitat; long-term impact to forest communities; and potential impacts to 23 cultural resources. The Connector 3 segment would displace two structures. Seismic activity could misalign or damage tracks, the railbed, or the access road. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0148D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110096, Final EIS--943 pages, Appendices--1,066 pages, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 21 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Floodplains KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska 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/868222998?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. [Part 19 of 61] T2 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. AN - 868222734; 14852-6_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 30 to 45 miles of rail line between the Port MacKenzie District in Matanuska-Susitna Borough and a point just north of Willow, Alaska are proposed. On December 5, 2008, the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) filed a petition for the Port MacKenzie rail extension to provide freight services between the deep-water port and Interior Alaska. Port MacKenzie is situated on nearly 9,000 acres of land and has an existing dockside bulk materials loading capacity with a conveyor system. Unlike similar port facilities that serve large, ocean-going vehicles, Port MacKenzie does not have rail service. Under the proposed action, ARRC would construct and operate a single-track rail line with a right-of-way (ROW) of 200 feet which would contain a power line, buried utility lines, and an access road. In addition, ARRC would construct one rail line siding within the exiting main line ROW at the tie-in location with the rail extension. The rail line would be constructed and maintained to Class 4 standards with a 60-mile-per-hour operating speed for freight service. Operations support facilities would be constructed and a terminal reserve area along the southern terminus of the line would eventually consist of yard sidings, storage areas, and a terminal building to support train maintenance. This final EIS considers 12 action alternatives based on two southern, three northern, and three connector segments. A No-Action Alternative is also considered. The environmentally preferred alternative is the Mac East Variant-Connector 3 Variant-Houston-Houston South Alternative. This alternative is located in an area of flat topography and would have a comparatively low level of potential impacts to most resources. The Mac East Variant Segment would begin in the terminal reserve area and would proceed north along the east side of the Point MacKenzie Agricultural Project before its junction with the Connector 3 Variant segment. The 5.47-mile-long connector segment would shift to the west and would cross Ayrshire Avenue and Farmers Road before continuing north of My Lake and crossing an adjacent ravine. From the Connector 3 Variant segment, the Houston Segment would proceed northeast, traveling through slightly undulating terrain with areas of wetland. The segment would pass between Papoose Twins and Crooked lakes, crossing an area of hilly terrain. The remaining four miles of the Houston Segment would be in a gradually rising wetland area to a point near Muleshoe and Little Horseshoe lakes, where it would connect to the Houston South Segment. This segment would traverse northeast, passing just west of Pear Lake and would tie into the existing main line near mile post 174.0 without crossing Parks Highway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve efficiency for freight shipping between Port MacKenzie and Interior Alaska and result in a temporary stimulus to the local economy and labor market with an estimated 66 to 100 workers added over a two-year construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the preferred alternative would involve crossings of floodplains, 19 culverts, two culvert extensions, two drainage structures, and two bridges. Culvert and bridge construction could degrade riparian areas with consequent loss of fish habitat, increase stages and velocities of floodwater, increase channel scour and downstream sedimentation, and change natural drainage. Other impacts would include: loss of 164 acres of wetlands; loss of 652 acres of wildlife habitat, including 223 acres of moose foraging habitat; long-term impact to forest communities; and potential impacts to 23 cultural resources. The Connector 3 segment would displace two structures. Seismic activity could misalign or damage tracks, the railbed, or the access road. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0148D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110096, Final EIS--943 pages, Appendices--1,066 pages, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 19 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Floodplains KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska 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/868222734?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. [Part 13 of 61] T2 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. AN - 868222679; 14852-6_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 30 to 45 miles of rail line between the Port MacKenzie District in Matanuska-Susitna Borough and a point just north of Willow, Alaska are proposed. On December 5, 2008, the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) filed a petition for the Port MacKenzie rail extension to provide freight services between the deep-water port and Interior Alaska. Port MacKenzie is situated on nearly 9,000 acres of land and has an existing dockside bulk materials loading capacity with a conveyor system. Unlike similar port facilities that serve large, ocean-going vehicles, Port MacKenzie does not have rail service. Under the proposed action, ARRC would construct and operate a single-track rail line with a right-of-way (ROW) of 200 feet which would contain a power line, buried utility lines, and an access road. In addition, ARRC would construct one rail line siding within the exiting main line ROW at the tie-in location with the rail extension. The rail line would be constructed and maintained to Class 4 standards with a 60-mile-per-hour operating speed for freight service. Operations support facilities would be constructed and a terminal reserve area along the southern terminus of the line would eventually consist of yard sidings, storage areas, and a terminal building to support train maintenance. This final EIS considers 12 action alternatives based on two southern, three northern, and three connector segments. A No-Action Alternative is also considered. The environmentally preferred alternative is the Mac East Variant-Connector 3 Variant-Houston-Houston South Alternative. This alternative is located in an area of flat topography and would have a comparatively low level of potential impacts to most resources. The Mac East Variant Segment would begin in the terminal reserve area and would proceed north along the east side of the Point MacKenzie Agricultural Project before its junction with the Connector 3 Variant segment. The 5.47-mile-long connector segment would shift to the west and would cross Ayrshire Avenue and Farmers Road before continuing north of My Lake and crossing an adjacent ravine. From the Connector 3 Variant segment, the Houston Segment would proceed northeast, traveling through slightly undulating terrain with areas of wetland. The segment would pass between Papoose Twins and Crooked lakes, crossing an area of hilly terrain. The remaining four miles of the Houston Segment would be in a gradually rising wetland area to a point near Muleshoe and Little Horseshoe lakes, where it would connect to the Houston South Segment. This segment would traverse northeast, passing just west of Pear Lake and would tie into the existing main line near mile post 174.0 without crossing Parks Highway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve efficiency for freight shipping between Port MacKenzie and Interior Alaska and result in a temporary stimulus to the local economy and labor market with an estimated 66 to 100 workers added over a two-year construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the preferred alternative would involve crossings of floodplains, 19 culverts, two culvert extensions, two drainage structures, and two bridges. Culvert and bridge construction could degrade riparian areas with consequent loss of fish habitat, increase stages and velocities of floodwater, increase channel scour and downstream sedimentation, and change natural drainage. Other impacts would include: loss of 164 acres of wetlands; loss of 652 acres of wildlife habitat, including 223 acres of moose foraging habitat; long-term impact to forest communities; and potential impacts to 23 cultural resources. The Connector 3 segment would displace two structures. Seismic activity could misalign or damage tracks, the railbed, or the access road. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0148D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110096, Final EIS--943 pages, Appendices--1,066 pages, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Floodplains KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska 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/868222679?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. [Part 12 of 61] T2 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. AN - 868222655; 14852-6_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 30 to 45 miles of rail line between the Port MacKenzie District in Matanuska-Susitna Borough and a point just north of Willow, Alaska are proposed. On December 5, 2008, the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) filed a petition for the Port MacKenzie rail extension to provide freight services between the deep-water port and Interior Alaska. Port MacKenzie is situated on nearly 9,000 acres of land and has an existing dockside bulk materials loading capacity with a conveyor system. Unlike similar port facilities that serve large, ocean-going vehicles, Port MacKenzie does not have rail service. Under the proposed action, ARRC would construct and operate a single-track rail line with a right-of-way (ROW) of 200 feet which would contain a power line, buried utility lines, and an access road. In addition, ARRC would construct one rail line siding within the exiting main line ROW at the tie-in location with the rail extension. The rail line would be constructed and maintained to Class 4 standards with a 60-mile-per-hour operating speed for freight service. Operations support facilities would be constructed and a terminal reserve area along the southern terminus of the line would eventually consist of yard sidings, storage areas, and a terminal building to support train maintenance. This final EIS considers 12 action alternatives based on two southern, three northern, and three connector segments. A No-Action Alternative is also considered. The environmentally preferred alternative is the Mac East Variant-Connector 3 Variant-Houston-Houston South Alternative. This alternative is located in an area of flat topography and would have a comparatively low level of potential impacts to most resources. The Mac East Variant Segment would begin in the terminal reserve area and would proceed north along the east side of the Point MacKenzie Agricultural Project before its junction with the Connector 3 Variant segment. The 5.47-mile-long connector segment would shift to the west and would cross Ayrshire Avenue and Farmers Road before continuing north of My Lake and crossing an adjacent ravine. From the Connector 3 Variant segment, the Houston Segment would proceed northeast, traveling through slightly undulating terrain with areas of wetland. The segment would pass between Papoose Twins and Crooked lakes, crossing an area of hilly terrain. The remaining four miles of the Houston Segment would be in a gradually rising wetland area to a point near Muleshoe and Little Horseshoe lakes, where it would connect to the Houston South Segment. This segment would traverse northeast, passing just west of Pear Lake and would tie into the existing main line near mile post 174.0 without crossing Parks Highway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve efficiency for freight shipping between Port MacKenzie and Interior Alaska and result in a temporary stimulus to the local economy and labor market with an estimated 66 to 100 workers added over a two-year construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the preferred alternative would involve crossings of floodplains, 19 culverts, two culvert extensions, two drainage structures, and two bridges. Culvert and bridge construction could degrade riparian areas with consequent loss of fish habitat, increase stages and velocities of floodwater, increase channel scour and downstream sedimentation, and change natural drainage. Other impacts would include: loss of 164 acres of wetlands; loss of 652 acres of wildlife habitat, including 223 acres of moose foraging habitat; long-term impact to forest communities; and potential impacts to 23 cultural resources. The Connector 3 segment would displace two structures. Seismic activity could misalign or damage tracks, the railbed, or the access road. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0148D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110096, Final EIS--943 pages, Appendices--1,066 pages, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Floodplains KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska 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/868222655?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. [Part 10 of 61] T2 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. AN - 868222609; 14852-6_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 30 to 45 miles of rail line between the Port MacKenzie District in Matanuska-Susitna Borough and a point just north of Willow, Alaska are proposed. On December 5, 2008, the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) filed a petition for the Port MacKenzie rail extension to provide freight services between the deep-water port and Interior Alaska. Port MacKenzie is situated on nearly 9,000 acres of land and has an existing dockside bulk materials loading capacity with a conveyor system. Unlike similar port facilities that serve large, ocean-going vehicles, Port MacKenzie does not have rail service. Under the proposed action, ARRC would construct and operate a single-track rail line with a right-of-way (ROW) of 200 feet which would contain a power line, buried utility lines, and an access road. In addition, ARRC would construct one rail line siding within the exiting main line ROW at the tie-in location with the rail extension. The rail line would be constructed and maintained to Class 4 standards with a 60-mile-per-hour operating speed for freight service. Operations support facilities would be constructed and a terminal reserve area along the southern terminus of the line would eventually consist of yard sidings, storage areas, and a terminal building to support train maintenance. This final EIS considers 12 action alternatives based on two southern, three northern, and three connector segments. A No-Action Alternative is also considered. The environmentally preferred alternative is the Mac East Variant-Connector 3 Variant-Houston-Houston South Alternative. This alternative is located in an area of flat topography and would have a comparatively low level of potential impacts to most resources. The Mac East Variant Segment would begin in the terminal reserve area and would proceed north along the east side of the Point MacKenzie Agricultural Project before its junction with the Connector 3 Variant segment. The 5.47-mile-long connector segment would shift to the west and would cross Ayrshire Avenue and Farmers Road before continuing north of My Lake and crossing an adjacent ravine. From the Connector 3 Variant segment, the Houston Segment would proceed northeast, traveling through slightly undulating terrain with areas of wetland. The segment would pass between Papoose Twins and Crooked lakes, crossing an area of hilly terrain. The remaining four miles of the Houston Segment would be in a gradually rising wetland area to a point near Muleshoe and Little Horseshoe lakes, where it would connect to the Houston South Segment. This segment would traverse northeast, passing just west of Pear Lake and would tie into the existing main line near mile post 174.0 without crossing Parks Highway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve efficiency for freight shipping between Port MacKenzie and Interior Alaska and result in a temporary stimulus to the local economy and labor market with an estimated 66 to 100 workers added over a two-year construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the preferred alternative would involve crossings of floodplains, 19 culverts, two culvert extensions, two drainage structures, and two bridges. Culvert and bridge construction could degrade riparian areas with consequent loss of fish habitat, increase stages and velocities of floodwater, increase channel scour and downstream sedimentation, and change natural drainage. Other impacts would include: loss of 164 acres of wetlands; loss of 652 acres of wildlife habitat, including 223 acres of moose foraging habitat; long-term impact to forest communities; and potential impacts to 23 cultural resources. The Connector 3 segment would displace two structures. Seismic activity could misalign or damage tracks, the railbed, or the access road. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0148D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110096, Final EIS--943 pages, Appendices--1,066 pages, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Floodplains KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska 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/868222609?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. [Part 2 of 61] T2 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. AN - 868222580; 14852-6_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 30 to 45 miles of rail line between the Port MacKenzie District in Matanuska-Susitna Borough and a point just north of Willow, Alaska are proposed. On December 5, 2008, the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) filed a petition for the Port MacKenzie rail extension to provide freight services between the deep-water port and Interior Alaska. Port MacKenzie is situated on nearly 9,000 acres of land and has an existing dockside bulk materials loading capacity with a conveyor system. Unlike similar port facilities that serve large, ocean-going vehicles, Port MacKenzie does not have rail service. Under the proposed action, ARRC would construct and operate a single-track rail line with a right-of-way (ROW) of 200 feet which would contain a power line, buried utility lines, and an access road. In addition, ARRC would construct one rail line siding within the exiting main line ROW at the tie-in location with the rail extension. The rail line would be constructed and maintained to Class 4 standards with a 60-mile-per-hour operating speed for freight service. Operations support facilities would be constructed and a terminal reserve area along the southern terminus of the line would eventually consist of yard sidings, storage areas, and a terminal building to support train maintenance. This final EIS considers 12 action alternatives based on two southern, three northern, and three connector segments. A No-Action Alternative is also considered. The environmentally preferred alternative is the Mac East Variant-Connector 3 Variant-Houston-Houston South Alternative. This alternative is located in an area of flat topography and would have a comparatively low level of potential impacts to most resources. The Mac East Variant Segment would begin in the terminal reserve area and would proceed north along the east side of the Point MacKenzie Agricultural Project before its junction with the Connector 3 Variant segment. The 5.47-mile-long connector segment would shift to the west and would cross Ayrshire Avenue and Farmers Road before continuing north of My Lake and crossing an adjacent ravine. From the Connector 3 Variant segment, the Houston Segment would proceed northeast, traveling through slightly undulating terrain with areas of wetland. The segment would pass between Papoose Twins and Crooked lakes, crossing an area of hilly terrain. The remaining four miles of the Houston Segment would be in a gradually rising wetland area to a point near Muleshoe and Little Horseshoe lakes, where it would connect to the Houston South Segment. This segment would traverse northeast, passing just west of Pear Lake and would tie into the existing main line near mile post 174.0 without crossing Parks Highway. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve efficiency for freight shipping between Port MacKenzie and Interior Alaska and result in a temporary stimulus to the local economy and labor market with an estimated 66 to 100 workers added over a two-year construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the preferred alternative would involve crossings of floodplains, 19 culverts, two culvert extensions, two drainage structures, and two bridges. Culvert and bridge construction could degrade riparian areas with consequent loss of fish habitat, increase stages and velocities of floodwater, increase channel scour and downstream sedimentation, and change natural drainage. Other impacts would include: loss of 164 acres of wetlands; loss of 652 acres of wildlife habitat, including 223 acres of moose foraging habitat; long-term impact to forest communities; and potential impacts to 23 cultural resources. The Connector 3 segment would displace two structures. Seismic activity could misalign or damage tracks, the railbed, or the access road. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0148D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110096, Final EIS--943 pages, Appendices--1,066 pages, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Floodplains KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska 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/868222580?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Critical swimming speeds of adult shovelnose sturgeon in rectilinear and boundaryalayer flow AN - 867742649; 14599262 AB - Critical swimming speeds of sturgeon are presumably lower in vertically uniform, rectilinear flow than in heterogeneous boundary-layer flow. Movement in rectilinear flow of the water column necessitates frequent high-energy free-swimming, while movement in boundary-layers near the bottom of the river permits a variety of lower energy behaviours, and presumably, negotiation of greater mid-column water velocities. Comparative studies of sturgeon swimming performance in rectilinear and boundary layer flows, however, are lacking. Using a 1200-l laboratory swim tunnel, swimming performance was measured for 12 adult shovelnose sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus platorynchus), 494-705mm standard length. Tests were conducted at 20-25 degree C in rectilinear (N=4) and boundary-layer flows (N=8). Fifteen minute critical swimming speeds ranged from 89.3 to 112.6cms-1 in rectilinear flow, 129.5-172.1cms-1 in boundary-layer flow. Higher critical swimming speeds observed in boundary-layer flows was a combination of behavioural adaptations (body appression to flat, horizontal substrate) and availability of a low velocity refugium (water velocities at bottom of tank 21-65cms-1 slower than those in mid and upper levels of tank). Results support the idea that sturgeon exploit boundary-layers to effectively move or hold position in fast-flowing rivers. Data may be applied to man-made river structures to facilitate fish passage and to reduce risk of sturgeon entrainment. JF - Journal of Applied Ichthyology/Zeitschrift fur angewandte Ichthyologie AU - Hoover, J J AU - Collins, J AU - Boysen, KA AU - Katzenmeyer, A W AU - Killgore, K J AD - Environmental Laboratory, US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS, USA Y1 - 2011/04// PY - 2011 DA - April 2011 SP - 226 EP - 230 PB - Wiley-Blackwell, 111 River Street Hoboken NJ 07030-5774 USA VL - 27 IS - 2 SN - 0175-8659, 0175-8659 KW - Aqualine Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts; Risk Abstracts; ASFA 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources; Environment Abstracts KW - Flow KW - comparative studies KW - Uniform Flow KW - Fish Passages KW - Risk reduction KW - Freshwater KW - Water column KW - adaptability KW - risk reduction KW - Comparative studies KW - Acipenser KW - Sturgeon KW - Scaphirhynchus platorynchus KW - Rivers KW - Fishways KW - Swimming KW - Adaptations KW - River discharge KW - Velocity KW - Biometrics KW - Tunnels KW - Performance Evaluation KW - Adaptability KW - Boundary layers KW - Length KW - water column KW - Fish KW - AQ 00001:Water Resources and Supplies KW - Q1 08423:Behaviour KW - SW 6010:Structures KW - R2 23010:General: Models, forecasting KW - ENA 07:General UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/867742649?accountid=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+Applied+Ichthyology%2FZeitschrift+fur+angewandte+Ichthyologie&rft.atitle=Critical+swimming+speeds+of+adult+shovelnose+sturgeon+in+rectilinear+and+boundaryalayer+flow&rft.au=Hoover%2C+J+J%3BCollins%2C+J%3BBoysen%2C+KA%3BKatzenmeyer%2C+A+W%3BKillgore%2C+K+J&rft.aulast=Hoover&rft.aufirst=J&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=27&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=226&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Applied+Ichthyology%2FZeitschrift+fur+angewandte+Ichthyologie&rft.issn=01758659&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111%2Fj.1439-0426.2011.01707.x LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - Document feature - figure 2 N1 - Last updated - 2016-03-17 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Comparative studies; Swimming; Fishways; Adaptations; Boundary layers; Length; River discharge; Biometrics; Tunnels; risk reduction; Adaptability; comparative studies; water column; Velocity; Fish; Risk reduction; Water column; adaptability; Flow; Rivers; Performance Evaluation; Uniform Flow; Fish Passages; Sturgeon; Acipenser; Scaphirhynchus platorynchus; Freshwater DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0426.2011.01707.x ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Assessing the risk of entrainment by cutterhead dredges to juvenile lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) and juvenile pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus) AN - 867736714; 14599237 AB - Sturgeon are threatened by dredging, but there is no established protocol for determining risk of entrainment to different populations of wide-ranging species. We demonstrate that laboratory evaluations of swimming performance for individual populations are an effective way to describe susceptibility of entrainment. Using a Blazka-type swim tunnel, we quantified positive rheotaxis (head-first orientation into flowing water), endurance (time to fatigue), and behaviour (method of movement) of juvenile sturgeon in water velocities ranging from 10 to 90cms-1. Sturgeon representing four different populations of the United States were tested: two populations of lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) and two populations of pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus). Lake sturgeon from Lake Winnebago were weaker swimmers than those from the Wisconsin River, and pallid sturgeon from the Yellowstone River were weaker swimmers than those from the Atchafalaya River. Rheotaxis, endurance, and behavioural data were used to calculate an index of entrainment risk, ranging from 0 (unlikely) to 1.00 (inevitable), which was applied to hydraulic models of dredge flow fields. Risk of entrainment varied among populations but for all groups tested, substantial entrainment risk occurred only within a 1.25m radius of the draghead and this risk could be significantly reduced or eliminated by reducing the diameter of the dredge pipe. JF - Journal of Applied Ichthyology/Zeitschrift fur angewandte Ichthyologie AU - Hoover, J J AU - Boysen, KA AU - Beard, JA AU - Smith, H AD - US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Environmental Laboratory, Vicksburg, MS, USA Y1 - 2011/04// PY - 2011 DA - April 2011 SP - 369 EP - 375 PB - Wiley-Blackwell, 111 River Street Hoboken NJ 07030-5774 USA VL - 27 IS - 2 SN - 0175-8659, 0175-8659 KW - Risk Abstracts; ASFA 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources; Environment Abstracts KW - Hydraulics KW - Entrainment KW - Scaphirhynchus albus KW - Anadromous species KW - Freshwater KW - Acipenser fulvescens KW - Risks KW - Dredges KW - Lakes KW - USA, Montana, Yellowstone R. KW - Acipenser KW - USA, Wisconsin, Wisconsin R. KW - Pipes KW - Juveniles KW - Rheotaxis KW - Fatigue KW - USA, Louisiana, Atchafalaya R. KW - Velocity KW - USA, Wisconsin, Winnebago L. KW - Tunnels KW - Nature conservation KW - Dredging KW - Q1 08423:Behaviour KW - R2 23010:General: Models, forecasting KW - ENA 07:General UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/867736714?accountid=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=Journal+of+Applied+Ichthyology%2FZeitschrift+fur+angewandte+Ichthyologie&rft.atitle=Assessing+the+risk+of+entrainment+by+cutterhead+dredges+to+juvenile+lake+sturgeon+%28Acipenser+fulvescens%29+and+juvenile+pallid+sturgeon+%28Scaphirhynchus+albus%29&rft.au=Hoover%2C+J+J%3BBoysen%2C+KA%3BBeard%2C+JA%3BSmith%2C+H&rft.aulast=Hoover&rft.aufirst=J&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=27&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=369&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Applied+Ichthyology%2FZeitschrift+fur+angewandte+Ichthyologie&rft.issn=01758659&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111%2Fj.1439-0426.2011.01746.x LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - Document feature - figure 3 N1 - Last updated - 2016-03-17 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Rheotaxis; Juveniles; Entrainment; Lakes; Anadromous species; Nature conservation; Dredging; Risks; Dredges; Hydraulics; Pipes; Fatigue; Velocity; Tunnels; Scaphirhynchus albus; Acipenser; Acipenser fulvescens; USA, Montana, Yellowstone R.; USA, Louisiana, Atchafalaya R.; USA, Wisconsin, Wisconsin R.; USA, Wisconsin, Winnebago L.; Freshwater DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0426.2011.01746.x ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST RAIL PROJECT, BRISTOL, PLYMOUTH, NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 16370739; 14851 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to fill wetlands, so as to construct a public transportation corridor over a distance of 50 to 60 miles between South Station in Boston and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts is proposed. The current transportation system connecting Southeastern Massachusetts with Boston and internally is primarily a highway system and characterized by a lack of transportation mode choice, especially public transit. The highway system is composed of major, limited access state routes, regional highways, and local roadways. As the population in the South Coast region and employment in the Boston area have grown, the demands on the roadway system have increased, as reflected by increased traffic volumes, resulting in traffic congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety. Projected regional growth and the trend of commuters to locate to areas further away from the Boston metropolitan core will exacerbate the existing problems and affect an increasing number of people. This draft EIS analyzes a No Build Alternative which would provide enhancements to existing bus services with limited improvements to the existing transit and roadway system, and seven build alternatives. Under the Attleboro Alternative, new commuter rail service would be provided through Attleboro using the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary, a new bypass track and the Northeast Corridor. The Stoughton Alternative, would provide commuter rail service to South Station through Stoughton, by the New Bedford Main Line, Fall River Secondary, Attleboro Secondary to Weir Junction in Taunton and an extension of the existing Stoughton Branch to Taunton. The Whittenton variation would follow the same route but rather than continuing north in a straight line towards Taunton, would swing northwest around Taunton in a more serpentine route, following the right-of-way of the former Whittenton Branch of the Stoughton Line. This option would serve the Whittenton section of Taunton. Both electric and diesel commuter rail options were evaluated for the Attleboro, Stoughton, and Whittenton alternatives. All rail alternatives would include improvements to the existing rail infrastructure and two overnight layover facilities, one on the New Bedford Main Line and one on the Fall River Secondary. Reconstruction of undergrade bridges (railroad over road or river) and overhead bridges (highway over railroad) along the existing and new rights-of-way would be required. The rail alternatives would result in 8,040 to 9,640 daily transit trips at proposed South Coast Rail stations. The Rapid Bus Alternative would provide commuter bus service to South Station via Interstate 93 (I-93), State Route 140 and State Route 24. North of I-495, buses would use a combination of new zipper bus lanes, new reversible bus lanes, two-way bus lanes, existing zipper HOV lanes, and existing HOV lanes, along with a short section in mixed traffic. South of the I-495 interchange in Raynham, buses would travel in the general purpose lanes with mixed traffic. The New Bedford route would be 56.4 miles long and the Fall River route would be 51.5 miles long. This alternative requires improvements to highway infrastructure and would include six new rapid bus stations. Capital costs are estimated in 2009 dollars at $1.4 million to $2.0 million for the rail alternatives and at $811,579 for the bus alternative. The Stoughton Alternative is preferred by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transportation corridor would help to more fully meet the existing and future demand for public transportation between Fall River/New Bedford and Boston, and to enhance regional mobility, while supporting smart growth planning and development strategies in the affected communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharge of fill material into waters of the United States would range in area from less than 11 acres to approximately 21 acres, depending on the alternative selected. Property acquisitions associated with the Attleboro Alternatives would require six residential displacements and six business displacements. The Stoughton Alternatives would require four residential displacements and four business displacements. The Whittenton Alternatives would require three residential displacements and four business displacements. The Rapid Bus Alternative would not require any residential displacements, but would require four business displacements. Construction would create neighborhood fragmentation, impact six to eight cultural resources, and have visual impacts. Noise from operation of rail cars would have severe impacts at 347 to 469 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110095, Volume I--1,276 pages, Volume II--Figures, Volume III-Appendices, April 1, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Massachusetts 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/16370739?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+BRISTOL%2C+PLYMOUTH%2C+NORFOLK+AND+SUFFOLK+COUNTIES%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Concord, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Biogeochemical and geocryological characteristics of wedge and thermokarst-cave ice in the CRREL permafrost tunnel, Alaska AN - 1017962430; 16700805 AB - Keywords: permafrost; thermokarst-cave ice; organic carbon storage; Alaska ABSTRACT Partially eroded ice wedges and lenticularly shaped bodies of massive thermokarst-cave ice in ice-rich syngenetic permafrost (yedoma) are exposed in the CRREL tunnel near Fairbanks, Alaska. The ice wedges, which formed 25 000-40 000 years ago, were subsequently affected by localised thermal erosion, resulting in underground cavities that filled with surface water infiltrating through a network of conduits. This water froze inward from the walls of the cavity. We report the biogeochemical characteristics of one of these thermokarst-cave ice features and four nearby ice wedges. The thermokarst-cave ice has 30 times the dissolved organic carbon concentration, 20 times the total dissolved nitrogen concentration and five to 20 times the inorganic solute concentrations of the surrounding (original) ice wedge material. Based on these results we present a schematic model to describe how the thermokarst-cave ice was formed and preserved and what processes led to its current biogeochemical characteristics. Current estimates of soluble solutes stored in permafrost may underestimate the total carbon and nutrient load where wedge material has been extensively replaced by surface water rich in organic carbon, nutrients or inorganic solutes. Published in 2011 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. JF - Permafrost and Periglacial Processes AU - Anonymous AD - Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Fort Wainwright, Alaska, USA, thomas.a.douglas@usace.army.mil Y1 - 2011/04// PY - 2011 DA - Apr 2011 SP - 120 EP - 128 PB - Wiley-Blackwell, 111 River Street Hoboken NJ 07030-5774 United States VL - 22 IS - 2 SN - 1099-1530, 1099-1530 KW - Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources KW - USA, Alaska KW - Ice KW - Biogeochemistry KW - Palaeo studies KW - Organic Carbon KW - Organic Loading KW - Organic carbon KW - Permafrost KW - Nutrients KW - Surface Water KW - Tunnels KW - USA, Alaska, Fairbanks KW - Ice wedges KW - Solutes KW - Erosion KW - Carbon KW - Conduits KW - Dissolved organic carbon KW - M2 551.32:E. Glaciology (551.32) KW - SW 6010:Structures KW - Q2 09124:Coastal zone management UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1017962430?accountid=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=Permafrost+and+Periglacial+Processes&rft.atitle=Biogeochemical+and+geocryological+characteristics+of+wedge+and+thermokarst-cave+ice+in+the+CRREL+permafrost+tunnel%2C+Alaska&rft.au=Anonymous&rft.aulast=Anonymous&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=22&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=120&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Permafrost+and+Periglacial+Processes&rft.issn=10991530&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002%2Fppp.709 L2 - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ppp.709/abstract LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2012-05-01 N1 - Last updated - 2014-07-10 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Ice; Solutes; Palaeo studies; Biogeochemistry; Organic carbon; Permafrost; Dissolved organic carbon; Tunnels; Ice wedges; Erosion; Carbon; Conduits; Organic Carbon; Organic Loading; Nutrients; Surface Water; USA, Alaska; USA, Alaska, Fairbanks DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ppp.709 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Suspend Load Calculations Made from Calibrating Adcp Velocity and Backscatter Measurements T2 - 2011 Meeting of the South-Central Section of Geological Society of America AN - 839704409; 9954120; 6033643 JF - 2011 Meeting of the South-Central Section of Geological Society of America AU - Pratt, Thad AU - Perkey, David Y1 - 2011/03/27/ PY - 2011 DA - 2011 Mar 27 KW - Velocity KW - Backscatter KW - Doppler sonar KW - Current profiles KW - Acoustic current meters UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/839704409?accountid=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+Meeting+of+the+South-Central+Section+of+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.atitle=Suspend+Load+Calculations+Made+from+Calibrating+Adcp+Velocity+and+Backscatter+Measurements&rft.au=Pratt%2C+Thad%3BPerkey%2C+David&rft.aulast=Pratt&rft.aufirst=Thad&rft.date=2011-03-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2011+Meeting+of+the+South-Central+Section+of+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2011SC/finalprogram/2011-03-29.htm LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-03 N1 - Last updated - 2012-09-05 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Measuring Bedload Transport and Suspended Load on the Mississippi River at the Old River Complex T2 - 2011 Meeting of the South-Central Section of Geological Society of America AN - 1312974348; 6033644 JF - 2011 Meeting of the South-Central Section of Geological Society of America AU - Abraham, David AU - McAlpin, Tate AU - Pratt, Thad Y1 - 2011/03/27/ PY - 2011 DA - 2011 Mar 27 KW - North America, Mississippi R. KW - Rivers KW - Sediment transport KW - Suspended load KW - Bed load UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1312974348?accountid=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+Meeting+of+the+South-Central+Section+of+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.atitle=Measuring+Bedload+Transport+and+Suspended+Load+on+the+Mississippi+River+at+the+Old+River+Complex&rft.au=Abraham%2C+David%3BMcAlpin%2C+Tate%3BPratt%2C+Thad&rft.aulast=Abraham&rft.aufirst=David&rft.date=2011-03-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2011+Meeting+of+the+South-Central+Section+of+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2011SC/finalprogram/2011-03-29.htm LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2013-02-26 N1 - Last updated - 2013-02-28 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Suspend Load Calculations Made from Calibrating Adcp Velocity and Backscatter Measurements T2 - 2011 Meeting of the South-Central Section of Geological Society of America AN - 1312974322; 6033643 JF - 2011 Meeting of the South-Central Section of Geological Society of America AU - Pratt, Thad AU - Perkey, David Y1 - 2011/03/27/ PY - 2011 DA - 2011 Mar 27 KW - Velocity KW - Backscatter KW - Doppler sonar KW - Current profiles KW - Acoustic current meters UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1312974322?accountid=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+Meeting+of+the+South-Central+Section+of+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.atitle=Suspend+Load+Calculations+Made+from+Calibrating+Adcp+Velocity+and+Backscatter+Measurements&rft.au=Pratt%2C+Thad%3BPerkey%2C+David&rft.aulast=Pratt&rft.aufirst=Thad&rft.date=2011-03-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2011+Meeting+of+the+South-Central+Section+of+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2011SC/finalprogram/2011-03-29.htm LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2013-02-26 N1 - Last updated - 2013-02-28 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TOPAZ SOLAR FARM PROJECT, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - TOPAZ SOLAR FARM PROJECT, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127126; 14843-7_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of funding in the form of a federal loan guarantee for Topaz Solar Farms, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of First Solar, Inc., to construct and start up a solar farm in unincorporated eastern San Luis Obispo County, California is proposed. The nominal 550-megawatt (MW) photovoltaic (PV) solar energy generating facility would be located one mile north of the community of California Valley and six miles northwest of the Carrizo Plain National Monument. The proposed facility would consist of a solar field of ground-mounted PV modules, an electrical collection system that converts generated power from direct current to alternating current and delivers it to a project substation for collection and conversion from 34.5 to 230 kilovolts (kV) for delivery via a new on-site Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) switching station, and the PG&E switching station that interconnects the project to PG&E's existing Morro Bay to Midway 230-kV transmission line which runs in an east-west direction through the project site. Generated electricity would be sold to PG&E under a long-term power purchase agreement. PG&E upgrades to the Morro Bay to Midway transmission line would be necessary to accommodate several projects in the region, including the final 150 MW of generated power by the proposed project. The PG&E upgrades would include: reconductoring 35 miles of transmission line; extending the height of every other tower by 20 feet to accommodate the new conductor; potentially replacing up to 10 percent of the towers to handle the additional weight; installing an optical ground wire along the length of the reconductored line for static and fiber optic communications; and installing a microwave tower and reflector. Additional components of the proposed project would include: a monitoring and maintenance facility; Solar Energy Learning Center; up to 22 miles of on-site access roads; leach field and septic systems adjacent to the monitoring and maintenance facility and Solar Energy Learning Center; and perimeter fencing around the PV arrays. Two alternatives for development of the proposed project and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in detail in this draft EIS. Each action alternative would contain virtually identical project features configured in different areas of the overall project site. Under Alternative A, the proposed project would be developed on up to 4,100 acres of a larger 7,800-acre study area termed Study Area A which encompasses the southern three-quarters of the 10,000 acres that have been secured by the project proponent. Under Alternative B, the proposed project would be developed on up to 4,000 acres of a larger 6,300-acre study area termed Study Area B, two miles north of the community of California Valley and seven miles northwest of the Carrizo Plain National Monument. This study area encompasses the northern two-thirds of the 10,000 acres that have been secured by the project proponent. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would increase the availability of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and provide over one million megawatt-hours of electricity per year, enough to power 160,000 California homes annually. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would result in land disturbance, visual impacts, generation of fugitive dust and noise, soil erosion potential, consumption of utilities and natural resources, and increased vehicle traffic adjacent to residential, agricultural, and Carrisa Plains Elementary School land uses. Construction in Study Area A could also periodically disturb visitors to the Carrizo Plains National Monument. The presence of the solar facility would convert up to 4,100 acres of land from agriculture to a non-agricultural use and would alter the rural and agricultural character of the immediate project area. Lighting and noise from operation could affect wildlife behavior and physiology, and project features could also displace populations and affect the movement of wildlife through the area, particularly mammals such as tule elk, pronghorn antelope, and kit fox. LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110087, Volume I--415 pages, Volume II: Appendices--826 pages, March 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0458-D KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Land Use KW - Monuments KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Solar Energy KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127126?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TOPAZ+SOLAR+FARM+PROJECT%2C+SAN+LUIS+OBISPO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=TOPAZ+SOLAR+FARM+PROJECT%2C+SAN+LUIS+OBISPO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Loan Programs Office, Washington, District of Columbia; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TOPAZ SOLAR FARM PROJECT, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - TOPAZ SOLAR FARM PROJECT, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126730; 14843-7_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of funding in the form of a federal loan guarantee for Topaz Solar Farms, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of First Solar, Inc., to construct and start up a solar farm in unincorporated eastern San Luis Obispo County, California is proposed. The nominal 550-megawatt (MW) photovoltaic (PV) solar energy generating facility would be located one mile north of the community of California Valley and six miles northwest of the Carrizo Plain National Monument. The proposed facility would consist of a solar field of ground-mounted PV modules, an electrical collection system that converts generated power from direct current to alternating current and delivers it to a project substation for collection and conversion from 34.5 to 230 kilovolts (kV) for delivery via a new on-site Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) switching station, and the PG&E switching station that interconnects the project to PG&E's existing Morro Bay to Midway 230-kV transmission line which runs in an east-west direction through the project site. Generated electricity would be sold to PG&E under a long-term power purchase agreement. PG&E upgrades to the Morro Bay to Midway transmission line would be necessary to accommodate several projects in the region, including the final 150 MW of generated power by the proposed project. The PG&E upgrades would include: reconductoring 35 miles of transmission line; extending the height of every other tower by 20 feet to accommodate the new conductor; potentially replacing up to 10 percent of the towers to handle the additional weight; installing an optical ground wire along the length of the reconductored line for static and fiber optic communications; and installing a microwave tower and reflector. Additional components of the proposed project would include: a monitoring and maintenance facility; Solar Energy Learning Center; up to 22 miles of on-site access roads; leach field and septic systems adjacent to the monitoring and maintenance facility and Solar Energy Learning Center; and perimeter fencing around the PV arrays. Two alternatives for development of the proposed project and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in detail in this draft EIS. Each action alternative would contain virtually identical project features configured in different areas of the overall project site. Under Alternative A, the proposed project would be developed on up to 4,100 acres of a larger 7,800-acre study area termed Study Area A which encompasses the southern three-quarters of the 10,000 acres that have been secured by the project proponent. Under Alternative B, the proposed project would be developed on up to 4,000 acres of a larger 6,300-acre study area termed Study Area B, two miles north of the community of California Valley and seven miles northwest of the Carrizo Plain National Monument. This study area encompasses the northern two-thirds of the 10,000 acres that have been secured by the project proponent. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would increase the availability of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and provide over one million megawatt-hours of electricity per year, enough to power 160,000 California homes annually. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would result in land disturbance, visual impacts, generation of fugitive dust and noise, soil erosion potential, consumption of utilities and natural resources, and increased vehicle traffic adjacent to residential, agricultural, and Carrisa Plains Elementary School land uses. Construction in Study Area A could also periodically disturb visitors to the Carrizo Plains National Monument. The presence of the solar facility would convert up to 4,100 acres of land from agriculture to a non-agricultural use and would alter the rural and agricultural character of the immediate project area. Lighting and noise from operation could affect wildlife behavior and physiology, and project features could also displace populations and affect the movement of wildlife through the area, particularly mammals such as tule elk, pronghorn antelope, and kit fox. LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110087, Volume I--415 pages, Volume II: Appendices--826 pages, March 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0458-D KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Land Use KW - Monuments KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Solar Energy KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126730?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TOPAZ+SOLAR+FARM+PROJECT%2C+SAN+LUIS+OBISPO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=TOPAZ+SOLAR+FARM+PROJECT%2C+SAN+LUIS+OBISPO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Loan Programs Office, Washington, District of Columbia; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE ROUTE 180 WESTSIDE EXPRESSWAY ROUTE ADOPTION STUDY, FRESNO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - STATE ROUTE 180 WESTSIDE EXPRESSWAY ROUTE ADOPTION STUDY, FRESNO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126684; 14841-5_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The adoption of a route for a four-lane expressway for State Route 180 (SR 180) from Interstate 5 (I-5) to the western terminus of SR 180, in western Fresno County, California is proposed. The study area is located west of the city of Fresno, from Whitesbridge Avenue on the south, nearly to the San Joaquin River on the north, and from I-5 on the west to the end of the freeway portion of SR 180 near Valentine Avenue on the east. Agricultural landscapes typical of Central Valley predominate and include flat cropland, vineyards, orchards, and some feedlots and dairies. There is no reliable and continuous regional east-west highway between Fresno and I-5 under current conditions. By 2030, the easternmost section of existing SR 180 (Whitesbridge Avenue) between Kerman and Fresno would have inadequate capacity to accommodate travel demand. SR 180 is primarily a two-lane conventional highway within the study area. This tier I draft EIS considers three proposed route adoption alternatives together with additional route variations and a No Action Alternative. Alternative 1 extends 48 miles across the valley, beginning at a point where a westerly extension of Belmont Avenue would intersect I-5. The alignment proceeds east crossing the California Aqueduct and turns southeast between San Diego Avenue and Ohio Avenue, passing south of the City of Mendota. This alternative generally follows existing SR 180 until it reaches a connection with the existing SR 180 freeway terminus at Brawley Avenue. Variation 1A (Shields Avenue/West Mendota Bypass) would provide additional opportunities for access for the City of Firebaugh and begins on the west end at an existing interchange of I-5 with Shields Avenue and runs eastward 18 miles then dips southeasterly just west of Mendota, to bypass the city. Variation 1B would bypass the city of Kerman to the north. Variation 1C would bypass both Kerman and Rolinda. The Southern Route Alternative (Alternative 2) extends 49 miles beginning at a point where Belmont Avenue would intersect I-5, follows the same alignment as Alternative 1 until just east of State Route 33 (SR 33), then runs northeasterly to generally follow the McKinley Avenue, Belmont Avenue, and Nielsen Avenue alignments to join the existing SR 180 freeway. The Northern Route Alternative (Alternative 3) extends 50 miles beginning at an existing interchange of I-5 with Shields Avenue and runs eastward 18 miles to SR 33 north of Mendota. From SR 33, the route continues eastward across agricultural land, the Mendota Pool Park and the Fresno Slough, and generally parallel to the south of the San Joaquin River/Madera County line. The route veers southeasterly to coincide with Alternative 2 for the remainder of the alignment. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The formal adoption of a route would enable planning for future transportation projects to improve mobility east and west through the center of Fresno County and the San Joaquin Valley, connecting the cities of Fresno, Kerman, Mendota, and Firebaugh and the unincorporated community of Rolinda. Future improvements would provide: adequate capacity for the regional movement of people and goods; continuity for east-west regional travel; improved accessibility and shorter travel times between Westside communities; and improved safety. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Conversion of farmland would be substantial given the study area location. Adverse impacts could occur to visual/aesthetic resources and biological resources such as wetlands and threatened and endangered species, including blunt-nosed leopard lizard, San Joaquin woollythreads, giant kangaroo rat, Fresno kangaroo rat, San Joaquin kit fox, giant garter snake, greater sandhill crane, and Swainsons hawk. Impacts would occur to parkland, cultural resources, floodplains, paleontological resources, and noise levels, and future projects may also displace numerous residences and businesses. An historic farmhouse, parks and recreation facilities, and wildlife refuges could be adversely impacted by the future projects. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110085, 444 pages and maps, March 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Land Use KW - Noise KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Visual Resources KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126684?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+ROUTE+180+WESTSIDE+EXPRESSWAY+ROUTE+ADOPTION+STUDY%2C+FRESNO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=STATE+ROUTE+180+WESTSIDE+EXPRESSWAY+ROUTE+ADOPTION+STUDY%2C+FRESNO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - California Department of Transportation, Fresno, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEW ORLEANS TO VENICE (NOV), LOUISIANA, FEDERAL HURRICANE PROTECTION LEVEE, PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - NEW ORLEANS TO VENICE (NOV), LOUISIANA, FEDERAL HURRICANE PROTECTION LEVEE, PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 873126032; 14842-6_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The restoration and accelerated completion of federal levees along the Mississippi River corridor in Plaquemines Parish, in southeastern Louisiana are proposed. The New Orleans to Venice (NOV) Federal Levee Project would restore the elevation of the levees on the east bank from Phoenix to Bohemia and the levees on the west bank from St. Jude to Venice to meet the authorized two percent design grade. The project was initially authorized in the Flood Control Act of 1962 and prior to the landfall of Hurricane Katrina in August of 2005 was approximately 85 percent complete with an estimated completion date of September 2018. Congress has provided funding for the restoration, armoring, and accelerated completion of the NOV federal levee through several emergency supplemental appropriation acts. Alternatives considered in this draft EIS include restoring the elevation of federal levees to meet the 50-year (two percent) level of risk reduction, which is the tentatively selected plan (TSP), and restoring the elevation of levees to meet the authorized pre-Katrina General Design Memorandum level of risk reduction. A No Action Alternative is also considered. The borrow material requirement to restore, armor, and accelerate completion of the entire NOV levee system to the two percent level of risk reduction is estimated at approximately 22.9 million cubic yards of non-compacted clay. The first NOV levee contracts are proposed to be awarded in April 2012, and completion is proposed for 2015. Temporary easements would be utilized for access and staging areas; however, acquisition would be perpetual levee easement/servitude for the levees and associated structures that are under construction. The currently estimated fully funded cost of the TSP, including mitigation, is between $857 million and $1.3 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would restore the elevation of flood risk reduction structures over a total length of 90 miles to meet authorized design grade, and stabilize those sections of levees where subsoil deficiencies or internal levee deficiencies undermine their strength. Risk to residences, businesses, and other infrastructure from storm-induced and wave-driven storm events in the Gulf of Mexico and high water events in the Mississippi River would be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the TSP would impact 147 acres of waters of the U.S., 367 acres of jurisdictional wetlands, 11 acres of other waters, 2,069 acres of floodplains, and 207.5 acres of intertidal marsh and open water bottoms that provide essential fish habitat. Water quality would be temporarily impacted by suspended sediments from levee fill materials. Portions of some major and local roadways are within the proposed footprint of the TSP and would need to be relocated. Based on the availability of funds, the possibility exists that some of the levee sections may proceed through the design stage only, adding a significant level of uncertainty to the project. The source of all required borrow material is currently not known. LEGAL MANDATES: Flood Control Act of 1962 (P.L. 87-874). JF - EPA number: 110086, 276 pages, March 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dikes KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hurricane Readiness Plans KW - Hurricanes KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi River KW - Flood Control Act of 1962, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126032?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEW+ORLEANS+TO+VENICE+%28NOV%29%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+FEDERAL+HURRICANE+PROTECTION+LEVEE%2C+PLAQUEMINES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=NEW+ORLEANS+TO+VENICE+%28NOV%29%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+FEDERAL+HURRICANE+PROTECTION+LEVEE%2C+PLAQUEMINES+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, Vicksburg, Mississippi; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEW ORLEANS TO VENICE (NOV), LOUISIANA, FEDERAL HURRICANE PROTECTION LEVEE, PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 863888959; 14842 AB - PURPOSE: The restoration and accelerated completion of federal levees along the Mississippi River corridor in Plaquemines Parish, in southeastern Louisiana are proposed. The New Orleans to Venice (NOV) Federal Levee Project would restore the elevation of the levees on the east bank from Phoenix to Bohemia and the levees on the west bank from St. Jude to Venice to meet the authorized two percent design grade. The project was initially authorized in the Flood Control Act of 1962 and prior to the landfall of Hurricane Katrina in August of 2005 was approximately 85 percent complete with an estimated completion date of September 2018. Congress has provided funding for the restoration, armoring, and accelerated completion of the NOV federal levee through several emergency supplemental appropriation acts. Alternatives considered in this draft EIS include restoring the elevation of federal levees to meet the 50-year (two percent) level of risk reduction, which is the tentatively selected plan (TSP), and restoring the elevation of levees to meet the authorized pre-Katrina General Design Memorandum level of risk reduction. A No Action Alternative is also considered. The borrow material requirement to restore, armor, and accelerate completion of the entire NOV levee system to the two percent level of risk reduction is estimated at approximately 22.9 million cubic yards of non-compacted clay. The first NOV levee contracts are proposed to be awarded in April 2012, and completion is proposed for 2015. Temporary easements would be utilized for access and staging areas; however, acquisition would be perpetual levee easement/servitude for the levees and associated structures that are under construction. The currently estimated fully funded cost of the TSP, including mitigation, is between $857 million and $1.3 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would restore the elevation of flood risk reduction structures over a total length of 90 miles to meet authorized design grade, and stabilize those sections of levees where subsoil deficiencies or internal levee deficiencies undermine their strength. Risk to residences, businesses, and other infrastructure from storm-induced and wave-driven storm events in the Gulf of Mexico and high water events in the Mississippi River would be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the TSP would impact 147 acres of waters of the U.S., 367 acres of jurisdictional wetlands, 11 acres of other waters, 2,069 acres of floodplains, and 207.5 acres of intertidal marsh and open water bottoms that provide essential fish habitat. Water quality would be temporarily impacted by suspended sediments from levee fill materials. Portions of some major and local roadways are within the proposed footprint of the TSP and would need to be relocated. Based on the availability of funds, the possibility exists that some of the levee sections may proceed through the design stage only, adding a significant level of uncertainty to the project. The source of all required borrow material is currently not known. LEGAL MANDATES: Flood Control Act of 1962 (P.L. 87-874). JF - EPA number: 110086, 276 pages, March 25, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dikes KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hurricane Readiness Plans KW - Hurricanes KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi River KW - Flood Control Act of 1962, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/863888959?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEW+ORLEANS+TO+VENICE+%28NOV%29%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+FEDERAL+HURRICANE+PROTECTION+LEVEE%2C+PLAQUEMINES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=NEW+ORLEANS+TO+VENICE+%28NOV%29%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+FEDERAL+HURRICANE+PROTECTION+LEVEE%2C+PLAQUEMINES+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, Vicksburg, Mississippi; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE ROUTE 180 WESTSIDE EXPRESSWAY ROUTE ADOPTION STUDY, FRESNO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 863888958; 14841 AB - PURPOSE: The adoption of a route for a four-lane expressway for State Route 180 (SR 180) from Interstate 5 (I-5) to the western terminus of SR 180, in western Fresno County, California is proposed. The study area is located west of the city of Fresno, from Whitesbridge Avenue on the south, nearly to the San Joaquin River on the north, and from I-5 on the west to the end of the freeway portion of SR 180 near Valentine Avenue on the east. Agricultural landscapes typical of Central Valley predominate and include flat cropland, vineyards, orchards, and some feedlots and dairies. There is no reliable and continuous regional east-west highway between Fresno and I-5 under current conditions. By 2030, the easternmost section of existing SR 180 (Whitesbridge Avenue) between Kerman and Fresno would have inadequate capacity to accommodate travel demand. SR 180 is primarily a two-lane conventional highway within the study area. This tier I draft EIS considers three proposed route adoption alternatives together with additional route variations and a No Action Alternative. Alternative 1 extends 48 miles across the valley, beginning at a point where a westerly extension of Belmont Avenue would intersect I-5. The alignment proceeds east crossing the California Aqueduct and turns southeast between San Diego Avenue and Ohio Avenue, passing south of the City of Mendota. This alternative generally follows existing SR 180 until it reaches a connection with the existing SR 180 freeway terminus at Brawley Avenue. Variation 1A (Shields Avenue/West Mendota Bypass) would provide additional opportunities for access for the City of Firebaugh and begins on the west end at an existing interchange of I-5 with Shields Avenue and runs eastward 18 miles then dips southeasterly just west of Mendota, to bypass the city. Variation 1B would bypass the city of Kerman to the north. Variation 1C would bypass both Kerman and Rolinda. The Southern Route Alternative (Alternative 2) extends 49 miles beginning at a point where Belmont Avenue would intersect I-5, follows the same alignment as Alternative 1 until just east of State Route 33 (SR 33), then runs northeasterly to generally follow the McKinley Avenue, Belmont Avenue, and Nielsen Avenue alignments to join the existing SR 180 freeway. The Northern Route Alternative (Alternative 3) extends 50 miles beginning at an existing interchange of I-5 with Shields Avenue and runs eastward 18 miles to SR 33 north of Mendota. From SR 33, the route continues eastward across agricultural land, the Mendota Pool Park and the Fresno Slough, and generally parallel to the south of the San Joaquin River/Madera County line. The route veers southeasterly to coincide with Alternative 2 for the remainder of the alignment. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The formal adoption of a route would enable planning for future transportation projects to improve mobility east and west through the center of Fresno County and the San Joaquin Valley, connecting the cities of Fresno, Kerman, Mendota, and Firebaugh and the unincorporated community of Rolinda. Future improvements would provide: adequate capacity for the regional movement of people and goods; continuity for east-west regional travel; improved accessibility and shorter travel times between Westside communities; and improved safety. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Conversion of farmland would be substantial given the study area location. Adverse impacts could occur to visual/aesthetic resources and biological resources such as wetlands and threatened and endangered species, including blunt-nosed leopard lizard, San Joaquin woollythreads, giant kangaroo rat, Fresno kangaroo rat, San Joaquin kit fox, giant garter snake, greater sandhill crane, and Swainsons hawk. Impacts would occur to parkland, cultural resources, floodplains, paleontological resources, and noise levels, and future projects may also displace numerous residences and businesses. An historic farmhouse, parks and recreation facilities, and wildlife refuges could be adversely impacted by the future projects. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110085, 444 pages and maps, March 25, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Land Use KW - Noise KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Visual Resources KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/863888958?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+ROUTE+180+WESTSIDE+EXPRESSWAY+ROUTE+ADOPTION+STUDY%2C+FRESNO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=STATE+ROUTE+180+WESTSIDE+EXPRESSWAY+ROUTE+ADOPTION+STUDY%2C+FRESNO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - California Department of Transportation, Fresno, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TOPAZ SOLAR FARM PROJECT, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 16374371; 14843 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of funding in the form of a federal loan guarantee for Topaz Solar Farms, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of First Solar, Inc., to construct and start up a solar farm in unincorporated eastern San Luis Obispo County, California is proposed. The nominal 550-megawatt (MW) photovoltaic (PV) solar energy generating facility would be located one mile north of the community of California Valley and six miles northwest of the Carrizo Plain National Monument. The proposed facility would consist of a solar field of ground-mounted PV modules, an electrical collection system that converts generated power from direct current to alternating current and delivers it to a project substation for collection and conversion from 34.5 to 230 kilovolts (kV) for delivery via a new on-site Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) switching station, and the PG&E switching station that interconnects the project to PG&E's existing Morro Bay to Midway 230-kV transmission line which runs in an east-west direction through the project site. Generated electricity would be sold to PG&E under a long-term power purchase agreement. PG&E upgrades to the Morro Bay to Midway transmission line would be necessary to accommodate several projects in the region, including the final 150 MW of generated power by the proposed project. The PG&E upgrades would include: reconductoring 35 miles of transmission line; extending the height of every other tower by 20 feet to accommodate the new conductor; potentially replacing up to 10 percent of the towers to handle the additional weight; installing an optical ground wire along the length of the reconductored line for static and fiber optic communications; and installing a microwave tower and reflector. Additional components of the proposed project would include: a monitoring and maintenance facility; Solar Energy Learning Center; up to 22 miles of on-site access roads; leach field and septic systems adjacent to the monitoring and maintenance facility and Solar Energy Learning Center; and perimeter fencing around the PV arrays. Two alternatives for development of the proposed project and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in detail in this draft EIS. Each action alternative would contain virtually identical project features configured in different areas of the overall project site. Under Alternative A, the proposed project would be developed on up to 4,100 acres of a larger 7,800-acre study area termed Study Area A which encompasses the southern three-quarters of the 10,000 acres that have been secured by the project proponent. Under Alternative B, the proposed project would be developed on up to 4,000 acres of a larger 6,300-acre study area termed Study Area B, two miles north of the community of California Valley and seven miles northwest of the Carrizo Plain National Monument. This study area encompasses the northern two-thirds of the 10,000 acres that have been secured by the project proponent. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would increase the availability of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and provide over one million megawatt-hours of electricity per year, enough to power 160,000 California homes annually. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would result in land disturbance, visual impacts, generation of fugitive dust and noise, soil erosion potential, consumption of utilities and natural resources, and increased vehicle traffic adjacent to residential, agricultural, and Carrisa Plains Elementary School land uses. Construction in Study Area A could also periodically disturb visitors to the Carrizo Plains National Monument. The presence of the solar facility would convert up to 4,100 acres of land from agriculture to a non-agricultural use and would alter the rural and agricultural character of the immediate project area. Lighting and noise from operation could affect wildlife behavior and physiology, and project features could also displace populations and affect the movement of wildlife through the area, particularly mammals such as tule elk, pronghorn antelope, and kit fox. LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110087, Volume I--415 pages, Volume II: Appendices--826 pages, March 25, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0458-D KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Land Use KW - Monuments KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Solar Energy KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16374371?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TOPAZ+SOLAR+FARM+PROJECT%2C+SAN+LUIS+OBISPO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=TOPAZ+SOLAR+FARM+PROJECT%2C+SAN+LUIS+OBISPO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Loan Programs Office, Washington, District of Columbia; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HONOLULU SEAWATER AIR CONDITIONING PROJECT, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, HAWAII. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - HONOLULU SEAWATER AIR CONDITIONING PROJECT, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, HAWAII. AN - 873128119; 14834-8_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a seawater air conditioning system (SWAC) at Kakaako on the leeward shore of the island of Oahu, Hawaii is proposed. Honolulu Seawater Air Conditioning, LLC proposes to construct a SWAC to provide 25,000 tons of centralized air conditioning for downtown Honolulu. The system would consist of: 1) a 63-inch diameter seawater intake pipe extending four to five miles offshore from Kakaako to a depth of 1,600 to 1,800 feet; 2) a 54-inch seawater return pipe extending 3,500 feet offshore from Kakaako to a depth of 150 feet; 3) a pump station containing pumps, heat exchangers and auxiliary chillers in the Makai District of the Kakaako Community Development District; and 4) a network of chilled water distribution pipes from the pump station to customer buildings in the downtown area. An 18-acre staging area for pipe assembly is proposed for an area along the western shore of Sand Island and in the adjoining channel in Keehi Lagoon. The proposed seawater intake and return pipes would obtain deep, cold seawater from the ocean to chill fresh water that would circulate through the SWAC system and return the seawater to the ocean after it has passed through onshore SWAC heat exchangers. The discrete segments of the intake and return seawater pipelines would extend from: the cooling station to the offshore breakout point; from the breakout point to the return seawater diffuser; and from the diffuser to the intake. The applicant proposes to use microtunneling (remote control pipe jacking) for the segment extending from the cooling station to the offshore breakout point. Two jacked pipelines would be installed. This draft EIS considers two action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Differences between the action alternatives include: location of the cooling station, the microtunnel route from the cooling station to the breakout point, location of the breakout point, and the pipe route seaward of the breakout point. Alternative 1, which is the applicants preferred alternative, would include a microtunneled shaft from a jacking pit located adjacent to Kakaako Waterfront Park to an offshore receiving pit from which to recover the microtunnel boring machine. The breakout point for the seawater intake and discharge shafts would be in the biotope of dredged rubble at a depth of 31 feet. This point is approximately 1,800 feet offshore, and is the closest point to shore where the biotope of scattered corals can be avoided. Exposed portions of the pipes from the breakout point to the intake would be held on the bottom with concrete collars. At depths down to 150 feet, for additional stability, steel pipe piles would be driven through sleeves in the collars using a percussion hammer. Under Alternative 2, the cooling station would be located on Pier 1 of Honolulu Harbor, slightly west of the Alternative 1 location. The microtunneled shaft from the cooling station would emerge to the east of the breakout point for Alternative 1, near the Kewalo Basin entrance channel. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed SWAC would allow the use of renewable, deep cold seawater instead of electricity-intensive refrigeration systems to air condition one or more buildings in downtown Honolulu. Implementation would save more than 77.5 million kilowatt-hours per year of electricity and up to 260 million gallons of potable water, as well as eliminate of up to 84 million gallons of sewage annually. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Excavations of the streets of downtown Honolulu could uncover burial remains or other culturally significant items and installation of distribution pipes would create traffic hazards. Offshore construction operations would create noise from both vessels and equipment, and vibration from pile driving. Vessel traffic within the Keehi Lagoon staging area for the pipelines would be restricted for a period of 10 months, although access to the residences on the island there would not be impeded. Operation would impact water quality and marine biota within a defined zone of mixing. The seawater return flows would be lower in temperature and dissolved oxygen concentrations and higher in dissolved inorganic nutrient concentrations. Under worst case conditions, ambient water quality standards would be met within about 150 feet of the diffuser. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110078, 572 pages, March 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Barges KW - Central Business Districts KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cooling Systems KW - Corals KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Islands KW - Lagoons KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Water Quality KW - Hawaii 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/873128119?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HONOLULU+SEAWATER+AIR+CONDITIONING+PROJECT%2C+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+HONOLULU%2C+HAWAII.&rft.title=HONOLULU+SEAWATER+AIR+CONDITIONING+PROJECT%2C+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+HONOLULU%2C+HAWAII.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Fort Shafter, Hawaii; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRIDENT SUPPORT FACILITIES EXPLOSIVES HANDLING WHARF (EHW-2), NAVAL BASE KITSAP BANGOR, SILVERDALE, KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 17 of 22] T2 - TRIDENT SUPPORT FACILITIES EXPLOSIVES HANDLING WHARF (EHW-2), NAVAL BASE KITSAP BANGOR, SILVERDALE, KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873127070; 14836-0_0017 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, located on the Hood Canal approximately 20 miles west of Seattle, 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 existing EHW alone will not be able to support TRIDENT program requirements. The EHW-2 would be adjacent to but separate from the existing EHW and would consist of two components: the wharf proper (or operations area), including the warping wharf; and access trestle(s). The wharf proper would be either pile-supported or floating. Two types of pile-supported wharf are being considered: a conventional pile-supported wharf and a large-pile wharf. The access trestles would be pile-supported and would be either completely separate or combined for part of their spans. The trestles under either option would come ashore at the same location and tie into existing roads. All piles would be hollow steel pipe piles. Five action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this draft EIS. The action alternatives consist of combinations of two access trestle layouts (separate and combined) and three wharf configurations (conventional pile-supported, large pile, and floating). 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 preferred alternative is the Combined Trestle, Large Pile Wharf Alternative (Alternative 1). 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 TRIDENT program requirements for the eight submarines currently homeported at NBK Bangor and for the TRIDENT II strategic weapons system. Construction duration would be shorter for Alternatives 1 and 3 than for Alternatives 2 and 4, resulting in less seafloor disturbance, less noise, and less of an impact to water quality, air quality, and transportation. Implementation of the proposed action 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 pile driving 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. The setting of the existing EHW, which is National Register of Historic Places-eligible, would be adversely affected by construction. 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: 110080, 945 pages, March 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 17 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Demolition KW - Fish KW - Harbor Structures KW - Marine Mammals KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Munitions KW - Noise KW - Safety Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses 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/873127070?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&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.&rft.title=TRIDENT+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+EXPLOSIVES+HANDLING+WHARF+%28EHW-2%29%2C+NAVAL+BASE+KITSAP+BANGOR%2C+SILVERDALE%2C+KITSAP+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&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 - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRIDENT SUPPORT FACILITIES EXPLOSIVES HANDLING WHARF (EHW-2), NAVAL BASE KITSAP BANGOR, SILVERDALE, KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 16 of 22] T2 - TRIDENT SUPPORT FACILITIES EXPLOSIVES HANDLING WHARF (EHW-2), NAVAL BASE KITSAP BANGOR, SILVERDALE, KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873127065; 14836-0_0016 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, located on the Hood Canal approximately 20 miles west of Seattle, 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 existing EHW alone will not be able to support TRIDENT program requirements. The EHW-2 would be adjacent to but separate from the existing EHW and would consist of two components: the wharf proper (or operations area), including the warping wharf; and access trestle(s). The wharf proper would be either pile-supported or floating. Two types of pile-supported wharf are being considered: a conventional pile-supported wharf and a large-pile wharf. The access trestles would be pile-supported and would be either completely separate or combined for part of their spans. The trestles under either option would come ashore at the same location and tie into existing roads. All piles would be hollow steel pipe piles. Five action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this draft EIS. The action alternatives consist of combinations of two access trestle layouts (separate and combined) and three wharf configurations (conventional pile-supported, large pile, and floating). 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 preferred alternative is the Combined Trestle, Large Pile Wharf Alternative (Alternative 1). 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 TRIDENT program requirements for the eight submarines currently homeported at NBK Bangor and for the TRIDENT II strategic weapons system. Construction duration would be shorter for Alternatives 1 and 3 than for Alternatives 2 and 4, resulting in less seafloor disturbance, less noise, and less of an impact to water quality, air quality, and transportation. Implementation of the proposed action 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 pile driving 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. The setting of the existing EHW, which is National Register of Historic Places-eligible, would be adversely affected by construction. 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: 110080, 945 pages, March 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 16 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Demolition KW - Fish KW - Harbor Structures KW - Marine Mammals KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Munitions KW - Noise KW - Safety Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses 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/873127065?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&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.&rft.title=TRIDENT+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+EXPLOSIVES+HANDLING+WHARF+%28EHW-2%29%2C+NAVAL+BASE+KITSAP+BANGOR%2C+SILVERDALE%2C+KITSAP+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&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 - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRIDENT SUPPORT FACILITIES EXPLOSIVES HANDLING WHARF (EHW-2), NAVAL BASE KITSAP BANGOR, SILVERDALE, KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 15 of 22] T2 - TRIDENT SUPPORT FACILITIES EXPLOSIVES HANDLING WHARF (EHW-2), NAVAL BASE KITSAP BANGOR, SILVERDALE, KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873127058; 14836-0_0015 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, located on the Hood Canal approximately 20 miles west of Seattle, 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 existing EHW alone will not be able to support TRIDENT program requirements. The EHW-2 would be adjacent to but separate from the existing EHW and would consist of two components: the wharf proper (or operations area), including the warping wharf; and access trestle(s). The wharf proper would be either pile-supported or floating. Two types of pile-supported wharf are being considered: a conventional pile-supported wharf and a large-pile wharf. The access trestles would be pile-supported and would be either completely separate or combined for part of their spans. The trestles under either option would come ashore at the same location and tie into existing roads. All piles would be hollow steel pipe piles. Five action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this draft EIS. The action alternatives consist of combinations of two access trestle layouts (separate and combined) and three wharf configurations (conventional pile-supported, large pile, and floating). 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 preferred alternative is the Combined Trestle, Large Pile Wharf Alternative (Alternative 1). 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 TRIDENT program requirements for the eight submarines currently homeported at NBK Bangor and for the TRIDENT II strategic weapons system. Construction duration would be shorter for Alternatives 1 and 3 than for Alternatives 2 and 4, resulting in less seafloor disturbance, less noise, and less of an impact to water quality, air quality, and transportation. Implementation of the proposed action 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 pile driving 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. The setting of the existing EHW, which is National Register of Historic Places-eligible, would be adversely affected by construction. 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: 110080, 945 pages, March 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Demolition KW - Fish KW - Harbor Structures KW - Marine Mammals KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Munitions KW - Noise KW - Safety Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses 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/873127058?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&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.&rft.title=TRIDENT+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+EXPLOSIVES+HANDLING+WHARF+%28EHW-2%29%2C+NAVAL+BASE+KITSAP+BANGOR%2C+SILVERDALE%2C+KITSAP+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&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 - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRIDENT SUPPORT FACILITIES EXPLOSIVES HANDLING WHARF (EHW-2), NAVAL BASE KITSAP BANGOR, SILVERDALE, KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 14 of 22] T2 - TRIDENT SUPPORT FACILITIES EXPLOSIVES HANDLING WHARF (EHW-2), NAVAL BASE KITSAP BANGOR, SILVERDALE, KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873127050; 14836-0_0014 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, located on the Hood Canal approximately 20 miles west of Seattle, 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 existing EHW alone will not be able to support TRIDENT program requirements. The EHW-2 would be adjacent to but separate from the existing EHW and would consist of two components: the wharf proper (or operations area), including the warping wharf; and access trestle(s). The wharf proper would be either pile-supported or floating. Two types of pile-supported wharf are being considered: a conventional pile-supported wharf and a large-pile wharf. The access trestles would be pile-supported and would be either completely separate or combined for part of their spans. The trestles under either option would come ashore at the same location and tie into existing roads. All piles would be hollow steel pipe piles. Five action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this draft EIS. The action alternatives consist of combinations of two access trestle layouts (separate and combined) and three wharf configurations (conventional pile-supported, large pile, and floating). 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 preferred alternative is the Combined Trestle, Large Pile Wharf Alternative (Alternative 1). 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 TRIDENT program requirements for the eight submarines currently homeported at NBK Bangor and for the TRIDENT II strategic weapons system. Construction duration would be shorter for Alternatives 1 and 3 than for Alternatives 2 and 4, resulting in less seafloor disturbance, less noise, and less of an impact to water quality, air quality, and transportation. Implementation of the proposed action 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 pile driving 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. The setting of the existing EHW, which is National Register of Historic Places-eligible, would be adversely affected by construction. 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: 110080, 945 pages, March 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Demolition KW - Fish KW - Harbor Structures KW - Marine Mammals KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Munitions KW - Noise KW - Safety Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses 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/873127050?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&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.&rft.title=TRIDENT+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+EXPLOSIVES+HANDLING+WHARF+%28EHW-2%29%2C+NAVAL+BASE+KITSAP+BANGOR%2C+SILVERDALE%2C+KITSAP+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&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 - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRIDENT SUPPORT FACILITIES EXPLOSIVES HANDLING WHARF (EHW-2), NAVAL BASE KITSAP BANGOR, SILVERDALE, KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 13 of 22] T2 - TRIDENT SUPPORT FACILITIES EXPLOSIVES HANDLING WHARF (EHW-2), NAVAL BASE KITSAP BANGOR, SILVERDALE, KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873127047; 14836-0_0013 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, located on the Hood Canal approximately 20 miles west of Seattle, 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 existing EHW alone will not be able to support TRIDENT program requirements. The EHW-2 would be adjacent to but separate from the existing EHW and would consist of two components: the wharf proper (or operations area), including the warping wharf; and access trestle(s). The wharf proper would be either pile-supported or floating. Two types of pile-supported wharf are being considered: a conventional pile-supported wharf and a large-pile wharf. The access trestles would be pile-supported and would be either completely separate or combined for part of their spans. The trestles under either option would come ashore at the same location and tie into existing roads. All piles would be hollow steel pipe piles. Five action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this draft EIS. The action alternatives consist of combinations of two access trestle layouts (separate and combined) and three wharf configurations (conventional pile-supported, large pile, and floating). 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 preferred alternative is the Combined Trestle, Large Pile Wharf Alternative (Alternative 1). 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 TRIDENT program requirements for the eight submarines currently homeported at NBK Bangor and for the TRIDENT II strategic weapons system. Construction duration would be shorter for Alternatives 1 and 3 than for Alternatives 2 and 4, resulting in less seafloor disturbance, less noise, and less of an impact to water quality, air quality, and transportation. Implementation of the proposed action 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 pile driving 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. The setting of the existing EHW, which is National Register of Historic Places-eligible, would be adversely affected by construction. 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: 110080, 945 pages, March 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Demolition KW - Fish KW - Harbor Structures KW - Marine Mammals KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Munitions KW - Noise KW - Safety Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses 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/873127047?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&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.&rft.title=TRIDENT+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+EXPLOSIVES+HANDLING+WHARF+%28EHW-2%29%2C+NAVAL+BASE+KITSAP+BANGOR%2C+SILVERDALE%2C+KITSAP+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&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 - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 19 of 26] T2 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 873127038; 14837-1_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) system in Cache County, Utah is proposed. In July 2009, a landslide occurred along a hillside in the city of Logan and a section of the LN Canal, a locally managed irrigation canal, broke away causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of a section of the canal. This closure affects other parts of the local irrigation water delivery system, with the result that the canal is not delivering all water allocated to local water shareholders. Cache County is seeking funding assistance through the Emergency Watershed Protection Program to design and construct an irrigation system that will restore irrigation water delivery to LN Canal shareholders. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of U.S. Highway 89). From this point of diversion (POD), the existing LN Canal route generally follows Canyon Road before turning north at about 600 East in Logan. The canal runs northerly through Logan, North Logan, Hyde Park, Smithfield, and unincorporated areas under the jurisdiction of Cache County and terminates north of Smithfield. After the landslide, a temporary water delivery system was established for LN Canal shareholders, but this system is able to deliver only about 50 percent of the water shares associated with the LN Canal. The study area is roughly bounded by 3100 North on the north (near Hyde Park), the Logan River on the south (in Logan), about 600 East on the west (in Logan and North Logan), and about 2000 East on the east (in Logan and North Logan). A narrow corridor also extends into Logan Canyon along the Logan River to about Second Dam. Three action alternatives (Purple Alternative, Orange Alternative, and Blue Alternative) and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the Purple Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, the POD for the LN Canal water would be moved upstream to the Logan Hyde Park Smithfield (LHPS) Canal POD structure below Second Dam. The LHPS Canal POD would be reconstructed as a box culvert between the POD and about Lundstrom Park/1500 North in Logan to accommodate an increase in the amount of water that could be diverted. LN Canal shares would be diverted from the box culvert into a pipeline that travels under city streets and discharges to the existing LN Canal at about 1500 North. The box culvert would end at Lundstrom Park/1500 North, and LHPS Canal shares would continue to flow in the existing LHPS Canal to its shareholders downstream. At the new 1500 North discharge point on the LN Canal, some water would be delivered to upstream users in a pressure pipe installed in the existing canal maintenance road. The remaining water would be discharged into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream users. For LN Canal shareholders between the POD and the Laub Diversion, a six-inch-diameter pipeline would be constructed in the existing canal. The Purple Alternative would include removing structures from 14 properties along Canyon Road in Logan at the toe of the historically unstable part of the Logan Bluff. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is between $20.4 million and $22.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would restore the safe delivery of water that was conveyed by the LN Canal before the 2009 landslide, and address the remaining hazards associated with the landslide zone between about 750 East and 1100 East. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would require removing riparian vegetation on the Logan River and upland and landscaped vegetation along the canal alignments. Modifications to the LHPS Canal POD could temporarily affect aquatic habitat in the Logan River. Implementation would require about 151 construction easements on public land, private residential/agricultural land, and private nonagricultural land. Canal structures would be constructed on or would cross National Forest System land, Logan Golf & Country Club, Ray Hugie Park, Lundstrom Park, and Bonneville Shoreline Trail. Temporary effects to four block groups of low-income populations and three blocks of minority populations would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110081, 740 pages, March 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 19 KW - Water KW - Canals KW - Cost Assessments KW - Diversion Structures KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Irrigation KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Logan River KW - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest KW - Utah KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127038?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 18 of 26] T2 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 873127032; 14837-1_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) system in Cache County, Utah is proposed. In July 2009, a landslide occurred along a hillside in the city of Logan and a section of the LN Canal, a locally managed irrigation canal, broke away causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of a section of the canal. This closure affects other parts of the local irrigation water delivery system, with the result that the canal is not delivering all water allocated to local water shareholders. Cache County is seeking funding assistance through the Emergency Watershed Protection Program to design and construct an irrigation system that will restore irrigation water delivery to LN Canal shareholders. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of U.S. Highway 89). From this point of diversion (POD), the existing LN Canal route generally follows Canyon Road before turning north at about 600 East in Logan. The canal runs northerly through Logan, North Logan, Hyde Park, Smithfield, and unincorporated areas under the jurisdiction of Cache County and terminates north of Smithfield. After the landslide, a temporary water delivery system was established for LN Canal shareholders, but this system is able to deliver only about 50 percent of the water shares associated with the LN Canal. The study area is roughly bounded by 3100 North on the north (near Hyde Park), the Logan River on the south (in Logan), about 600 East on the west (in Logan and North Logan), and about 2000 East on the east (in Logan and North Logan). A narrow corridor also extends into Logan Canyon along the Logan River to about Second Dam. Three action alternatives (Purple Alternative, Orange Alternative, and Blue Alternative) and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the Purple Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, the POD for the LN Canal water would be moved upstream to the Logan Hyde Park Smithfield (LHPS) Canal POD structure below Second Dam. The LHPS Canal POD would be reconstructed as a box culvert between the POD and about Lundstrom Park/1500 North in Logan to accommodate an increase in the amount of water that could be diverted. LN Canal shares would be diverted from the box culvert into a pipeline that travels under city streets and discharges to the existing LN Canal at about 1500 North. The box culvert would end at Lundstrom Park/1500 North, and LHPS Canal shares would continue to flow in the existing LHPS Canal to its shareholders downstream. At the new 1500 North discharge point on the LN Canal, some water would be delivered to upstream users in a pressure pipe installed in the existing canal maintenance road. The remaining water would be discharged into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream users. For LN Canal shareholders between the POD and the Laub Diversion, a six-inch-diameter pipeline would be constructed in the existing canal. The Purple Alternative would include removing structures from 14 properties along Canyon Road in Logan at the toe of the historically unstable part of the Logan Bluff. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is between $20.4 million and $22.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would restore the safe delivery of water that was conveyed by the LN Canal before the 2009 landslide, and address the remaining hazards associated with the landslide zone between about 750 East and 1100 East. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would require removing riparian vegetation on the Logan River and upland and landscaped vegetation along the canal alignments. Modifications to the LHPS Canal POD could temporarily affect aquatic habitat in the Logan River. Implementation would require about 151 construction easements on public land, private residential/agricultural land, and private nonagricultural land. Canal structures would be constructed on or would cross National Forest System land, Logan Golf & Country Club, Ray Hugie Park, Lundstrom Park, and Bonneville Shoreline Trail. Temporary effects to four block groups of low-income populations and three blocks of minority populations would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110081, 740 pages, March 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 18 KW - Water KW - Canals KW - Cost Assessments KW - Diversion Structures KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Irrigation KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Logan River KW - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest KW - Utah KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127032?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 16 of 26] T2 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 873127029; 14837-1_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) system in Cache County, Utah is proposed. In July 2009, a landslide occurred along a hillside in the city of Logan and a section of the LN Canal, a locally managed irrigation canal, broke away causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of a section of the canal. This closure affects other parts of the local irrigation water delivery system, with the result that the canal is not delivering all water allocated to local water shareholders. Cache County is seeking funding assistance through the Emergency Watershed Protection Program to design and construct an irrigation system that will restore irrigation water delivery to LN Canal shareholders. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of U.S. Highway 89). From this point of diversion (POD), the existing LN Canal route generally follows Canyon Road before turning north at about 600 East in Logan. The canal runs northerly through Logan, North Logan, Hyde Park, Smithfield, and unincorporated areas under the jurisdiction of Cache County and terminates north of Smithfield. After the landslide, a temporary water delivery system was established for LN Canal shareholders, but this system is able to deliver only about 50 percent of the water shares associated with the LN Canal. The study area is roughly bounded by 3100 North on the north (near Hyde Park), the Logan River on the south (in Logan), about 600 East on the west (in Logan and North Logan), and about 2000 East on the east (in Logan and North Logan). A narrow corridor also extends into Logan Canyon along the Logan River to about Second Dam. Three action alternatives (Purple Alternative, Orange Alternative, and Blue Alternative) and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the Purple Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, the POD for the LN Canal water would be moved upstream to the Logan Hyde Park Smithfield (LHPS) Canal POD structure below Second Dam. The LHPS Canal POD would be reconstructed as a box culvert between the POD and about Lundstrom Park/1500 North in Logan to accommodate an increase in the amount of water that could be diverted. LN Canal shares would be diverted from the box culvert into a pipeline that travels under city streets and discharges to the existing LN Canal at about 1500 North. The box culvert would end at Lundstrom Park/1500 North, and LHPS Canal shares would continue to flow in the existing LHPS Canal to its shareholders downstream. At the new 1500 North discharge point on the LN Canal, some water would be delivered to upstream users in a pressure pipe installed in the existing canal maintenance road. The remaining water would be discharged into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream users. For LN Canal shareholders between the POD and the Laub Diversion, a six-inch-diameter pipeline would be constructed in the existing canal. The Purple Alternative would include removing structures from 14 properties along Canyon Road in Logan at the toe of the historically unstable part of the Logan Bluff. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is between $20.4 million and $22.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would restore the safe delivery of water that was conveyed by the LN Canal before the 2009 landslide, and address the remaining hazards associated with the landslide zone between about 750 East and 1100 East. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would require removing riparian vegetation on the Logan River and upland and landscaped vegetation along the canal alignments. Modifications to the LHPS Canal POD could temporarily affect aquatic habitat in the Logan River. Implementation would require about 151 construction easements on public land, private residential/agricultural land, and private nonagricultural land. Canal structures would be constructed on or would cross National Forest System land, Logan Golf & Country Club, Ray Hugie Park, Lundstrom Park, and Bonneville Shoreline Trail. Temporary effects to four block groups of low-income populations and three blocks of minority populations would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110081, 740 pages, March 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 16 KW - Water KW - Canals KW - Cost Assessments KW - Diversion Structures KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Irrigation KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Logan River KW - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest KW - Utah KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127029?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRIDENT SUPPORT FACILITIES EXPLOSIVES HANDLING WHARF (EHW-2), NAVAL BASE KITSAP BANGOR, SILVERDALE, KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 12 of 22] T2 - TRIDENT SUPPORT FACILITIES EXPLOSIVES HANDLING WHARF (EHW-2), NAVAL BASE KITSAP BANGOR, SILVERDALE, KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873126941; 14836-0_0012 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, located on the Hood Canal approximately 20 miles west of Seattle, 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 existing EHW alone will not be able to support TRIDENT program requirements. The EHW-2 would be adjacent to but separate from the existing EHW and would consist of two components: the wharf proper (or operations area), including the warping wharf; and access trestle(s). The wharf proper would be either pile-supported or floating. Two types of pile-supported wharf are being considered: a conventional pile-supported wharf and a large-pile wharf. The access trestles would be pile-supported and would be either completely separate or combined for part of their spans. The trestles under either option would come ashore at the same location and tie into existing roads. All piles would be hollow steel pipe piles. Five action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this draft EIS. The action alternatives consist of combinations of two access trestle layouts (separate and combined) and three wharf configurations (conventional pile-supported, large pile, and floating). 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 preferred alternative is the Combined Trestle, Large Pile Wharf Alternative (Alternative 1). 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 TRIDENT program requirements for the eight submarines currently homeported at NBK Bangor and for the TRIDENT II strategic weapons system. Construction duration would be shorter for Alternatives 1 and 3 than for Alternatives 2 and 4, resulting in less seafloor disturbance, less noise, and less of an impact to water quality, air quality, and transportation. Implementation of the proposed action 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 pile driving 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. The setting of the existing EHW, which is National Register of Historic Places-eligible, would be adversely affected by construction. 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: 110080, 945 pages, March 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Demolition KW - Fish KW - Harbor Structures KW - Marine Mammals KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Munitions KW - Noise KW - Safety Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses 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/873126941?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&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.&rft.title=TRIDENT+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+EXPLOSIVES+HANDLING+WHARF+%28EHW-2%29%2C+NAVAL+BASE+KITSAP+BANGOR%2C+SILVERDALE%2C+KITSAP+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&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 - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRIDENT SUPPORT FACILITIES EXPLOSIVES HANDLING WHARF (EHW-2), NAVAL BASE KITSAP BANGOR, SILVERDALE, KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 11 of 22] T2 - TRIDENT SUPPORT FACILITIES EXPLOSIVES HANDLING WHARF (EHW-2), NAVAL BASE KITSAP BANGOR, SILVERDALE, KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873126936; 14836-0_0011 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, located on the Hood Canal approximately 20 miles west of Seattle, 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 existing EHW alone will not be able to support TRIDENT program requirements. The EHW-2 would be adjacent to but separate from the existing EHW and would consist of two components: the wharf proper (or operations area), including the warping wharf; and access trestle(s). The wharf proper would be either pile-supported or floating. Two types of pile-supported wharf are being considered: a conventional pile-supported wharf and a large-pile wharf. The access trestles would be pile-supported and would be either completely separate or combined for part of their spans. The trestles under either option would come ashore at the same location and tie into existing roads. All piles would be hollow steel pipe piles. Five action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this draft EIS. The action alternatives consist of combinations of two access trestle layouts (separate and combined) and three wharf configurations (conventional pile-supported, large pile, and floating). 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 preferred alternative is the Combined Trestle, Large Pile Wharf Alternative (Alternative 1). 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 TRIDENT program requirements for the eight submarines currently homeported at NBK Bangor and for the TRIDENT II strategic weapons system. Construction duration would be shorter for Alternatives 1 and 3 than for Alternatives 2 and 4, resulting in less seafloor disturbance, less noise, and less of an impact to water quality, air quality, and transportation. Implementation of the proposed action 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 pile driving 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. The setting of the existing EHW, which is National Register of Historic Places-eligible, would be adversely affected by construction. 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: 110080, 945 pages, March 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Demolition KW - Fish KW - Harbor Structures KW - Marine Mammals KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Munitions KW - Noise KW - Safety Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses 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/873126936?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&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.&rft.title=TRIDENT+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+EXPLOSIVES+HANDLING+WHARF+%28EHW-2%29%2C+NAVAL+BASE+KITSAP+BANGOR%2C+SILVERDALE%2C+KITSAP+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&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 - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRIDENT SUPPORT FACILITIES EXPLOSIVES HANDLING WHARF (EHW-2), NAVAL BASE KITSAP BANGOR, SILVERDALE, KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 22 of 22] T2 - TRIDENT SUPPORT FACILITIES EXPLOSIVES HANDLING WHARF (EHW-2), NAVAL BASE KITSAP BANGOR, SILVERDALE, KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873126935; 14836-0_0022 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, located on the Hood Canal approximately 20 miles west of Seattle, 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 existing EHW alone will not be able to support TRIDENT program requirements. The EHW-2 would be adjacent to but separate from the existing EHW and would consist of two components: the wharf proper (or operations area), including the warping wharf; and access trestle(s). The wharf proper would be either pile-supported or floating. Two types of pile-supported wharf are being considered: a conventional pile-supported wharf and a large-pile wharf. The access trestles would be pile-supported and would be either completely separate or combined for part of their spans. The trestles under either option would come ashore at the same location and tie into existing roads. All piles would be hollow steel pipe piles. Five action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this draft EIS. The action alternatives consist of combinations of two access trestle layouts (separate and combined) and three wharf configurations (conventional pile-supported, large pile, and floating). 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 preferred alternative is the Combined Trestle, Large Pile Wharf Alternative (Alternative 1). 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 TRIDENT program requirements for the eight submarines currently homeported at NBK Bangor and for the TRIDENT II strategic weapons system. Construction duration would be shorter for Alternatives 1 and 3 than for Alternatives 2 and 4, resulting in less seafloor disturbance, less noise, and less of an impact to water quality, air quality, and transportation. Implementation of the proposed action 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 pile driving 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. The setting of the existing EHW, which is National Register of Historic Places-eligible, would be adversely affected by construction. 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: 110080, 945 pages, March 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 22 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Demolition KW - Fish KW - Harbor Structures KW - Marine Mammals KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Munitions KW - Noise KW - Safety Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses 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/873126935?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&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.&rft.title=TRIDENT+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+EXPLOSIVES+HANDLING+WHARF+%28EHW-2%29%2C+NAVAL+BASE+KITSAP+BANGOR%2C+SILVERDALE%2C+KITSAP+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&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 - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRIDENT SUPPORT FACILITIES EXPLOSIVES HANDLING WHARF (EHW-2), NAVAL BASE KITSAP BANGOR, SILVERDALE, KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 21 of 22] T2 - TRIDENT SUPPORT FACILITIES EXPLOSIVES HANDLING WHARF (EHW-2), NAVAL BASE KITSAP BANGOR, SILVERDALE, KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873126929; 14836-0_0021 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, located on the Hood Canal approximately 20 miles west of Seattle, 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 existing EHW alone will not be able to support TRIDENT program requirements. The EHW-2 would be adjacent to but separate from the existing EHW and would consist of two components: the wharf proper (or operations area), including the warping wharf; and access trestle(s). The wharf proper would be either pile-supported or floating. Two types of pile-supported wharf are being considered: a conventional pile-supported wharf and a large-pile wharf. The access trestles would be pile-supported and would be either completely separate or combined for part of their spans. The trestles under either option would come ashore at the same location and tie into existing roads. All piles would be hollow steel pipe piles. Five action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this draft EIS. The action alternatives consist of combinations of two access trestle layouts (separate and combined) and three wharf configurations (conventional pile-supported, large pile, and floating). 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 preferred alternative is the Combined Trestle, Large Pile Wharf Alternative (Alternative 1). 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 TRIDENT program requirements for the eight submarines currently homeported at NBK Bangor and for the TRIDENT II strategic weapons system. Construction duration would be shorter for Alternatives 1 and 3 than for Alternatives 2 and 4, resulting in less seafloor disturbance, less noise, and less of an impact to water quality, air quality, and transportation. Implementation of the proposed action 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 pile driving 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. The setting of the existing EHW, which is National Register of Historic Places-eligible, would be adversely affected by construction. 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: 110080, 945 pages, March 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 21 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Demolition KW - Fish KW - Harbor Structures KW - Marine Mammals KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Munitions KW - Noise KW - Safety Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses 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/873126929?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&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.&rft.title=TRIDENT+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+EXPLOSIVES+HANDLING+WHARF+%28EHW-2%29%2C+NAVAL+BASE+KITSAP+BANGOR%2C+SILVERDALE%2C+KITSAP+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&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 - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRIDENT SUPPORT FACILITIES EXPLOSIVES HANDLING WHARF (EHW-2), NAVAL BASE KITSAP BANGOR, SILVERDALE, KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 10 of 22] T2 - TRIDENT SUPPORT FACILITIES EXPLOSIVES HANDLING WHARF (EHW-2), NAVAL BASE KITSAP BANGOR, SILVERDALE, KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873126927; 14836-0_0010 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, located on the Hood Canal approximately 20 miles west of Seattle, 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 existing EHW alone will not be able to support TRIDENT program requirements. The EHW-2 would be adjacent to but separate from the existing EHW and would consist of two components: the wharf proper (or operations area), including the warping wharf; and access trestle(s). The wharf proper would be either pile-supported or floating. Two types of pile-supported wharf are being considered: a conventional pile-supported wharf and a large-pile wharf. The access trestles would be pile-supported and would be either completely separate or combined for part of their spans. The trestles under either option would come ashore at the same location and tie into existing roads. All piles would be hollow steel pipe piles. Five action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this draft EIS. The action alternatives consist of combinations of two access trestle layouts (separate and combined) and three wharf configurations (conventional pile-supported, large pile, and floating). 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 preferred alternative is the Combined Trestle, Large Pile Wharf Alternative (Alternative 1). 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 TRIDENT program requirements for the eight submarines currently homeported at NBK Bangor and for the TRIDENT II strategic weapons system. Construction duration would be shorter for Alternatives 1 and 3 than for Alternatives 2 and 4, resulting in less seafloor disturbance, less noise, and less of an impact to water quality, air quality, and transportation. Implementation of the proposed action 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 pile driving 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. The setting of the existing EHW, which is National Register of Historic Places-eligible, would be adversely affected by construction. 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: 110080, 945 pages, March 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Demolition KW - Fish KW - Harbor Structures KW - Marine Mammals KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Munitions KW - Noise KW - Safety Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses 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/873126927?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&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.&rft.title=TRIDENT+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+EXPLOSIVES+HANDLING+WHARF+%28EHW-2%29%2C+NAVAL+BASE+KITSAP+BANGOR%2C+SILVERDALE%2C+KITSAP+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&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 - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRIDENT SUPPORT FACILITIES EXPLOSIVES HANDLING WHARF (EHW-2), NAVAL BASE KITSAP BANGOR, SILVERDALE, KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 20 of 22] T2 - TRIDENT SUPPORT FACILITIES EXPLOSIVES HANDLING WHARF (EHW-2), NAVAL BASE KITSAP BANGOR, SILVERDALE, KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873126923; 14836-0_0020 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, located on the Hood Canal approximately 20 miles west of Seattle, 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 existing EHW alone will not be able to support TRIDENT program requirements. The EHW-2 would be adjacent to but separate from the existing EHW and would consist of two components: the wharf proper (or operations area), including the warping wharf; and access trestle(s). The wharf proper would be either pile-supported or floating. Two types of pile-supported wharf are being considered: a conventional pile-supported wharf and a large-pile wharf. The access trestles would be pile-supported and would be either completely separate or combined for part of their spans. The trestles under either option would come ashore at the same location and tie into existing roads. All piles would be hollow steel pipe piles. Five action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this draft EIS. The action alternatives consist of combinations of two access trestle layouts (separate and combined) and three wharf configurations (conventional pile-supported, large pile, and floating). 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 preferred alternative is the Combined Trestle, Large Pile Wharf Alternative (Alternative 1). 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 TRIDENT program requirements for the eight submarines currently homeported at NBK Bangor and for the TRIDENT II strategic weapons system. Construction duration would be shorter for Alternatives 1 and 3 than for Alternatives 2 and 4, resulting in less seafloor disturbance, less noise, and less of an impact to water quality, air quality, and transportation. Implementation of the proposed action 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 pile driving 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. The setting of the existing EHW, which is National Register of Historic Places-eligible, would be adversely affected by construction. 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: 110080, 945 pages, March 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 20 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Demolition KW - Fish KW - Harbor Structures KW - Marine Mammals KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Munitions KW - Noise KW - Safety Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses 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/873126923?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&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.&rft.title=TRIDENT+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+EXPLOSIVES+HANDLING+WHARF+%28EHW-2%29%2C+NAVAL+BASE+KITSAP+BANGOR%2C+SILVERDALE%2C+KITSAP+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&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 - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 22 of 26] T2 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 873126920; 14837-1_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) system in Cache County, Utah is proposed. In July 2009, a landslide occurred along a hillside in the city of Logan and a section of the LN Canal, a locally managed irrigation canal, broke away causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of a section of the canal. This closure affects other parts of the local irrigation water delivery system, with the result that the canal is not delivering all water allocated to local water shareholders. Cache County is seeking funding assistance through the Emergency Watershed Protection Program to design and construct an irrigation system that will restore irrigation water delivery to LN Canal shareholders. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of U.S. Highway 89). From this point of diversion (POD), the existing LN Canal route generally follows Canyon Road before turning north at about 600 East in Logan. The canal runs northerly through Logan, North Logan, Hyde Park, Smithfield, and unincorporated areas under the jurisdiction of Cache County and terminates north of Smithfield. After the landslide, a temporary water delivery system was established for LN Canal shareholders, but this system is able to deliver only about 50 percent of the water shares associated with the LN Canal. The study area is roughly bounded by 3100 North on the north (near Hyde Park), the Logan River on the south (in Logan), about 600 East on the west (in Logan and North Logan), and about 2000 East on the east (in Logan and North Logan). A narrow corridor also extends into Logan Canyon along the Logan River to about Second Dam. Three action alternatives (Purple Alternative, Orange Alternative, and Blue Alternative) and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the Purple Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, the POD for the LN Canal water would be moved upstream to the Logan Hyde Park Smithfield (LHPS) Canal POD structure below Second Dam. The LHPS Canal POD would be reconstructed as a box culvert between the POD and about Lundstrom Park/1500 North in Logan to accommodate an increase in the amount of water that could be diverted. LN Canal shares would be diverted from the box culvert into a pipeline that travels under city streets and discharges to the existing LN Canal at about 1500 North. The box culvert would end at Lundstrom Park/1500 North, and LHPS Canal shares would continue to flow in the existing LHPS Canal to its shareholders downstream. At the new 1500 North discharge point on the LN Canal, some water would be delivered to upstream users in a pressure pipe installed in the existing canal maintenance road. The remaining water would be discharged into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream users. For LN Canal shareholders between the POD and the Laub Diversion, a six-inch-diameter pipeline would be constructed in the existing canal. The Purple Alternative would include removing structures from 14 properties along Canyon Road in Logan at the toe of the historically unstable part of the Logan Bluff. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is between $20.4 million and $22.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would restore the safe delivery of water that was conveyed by the LN Canal before the 2009 landslide, and address the remaining hazards associated with the landslide zone between about 750 East and 1100 East. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would require removing riparian vegetation on the Logan River and upland and landscaped vegetation along the canal alignments. Modifications to the LHPS Canal POD could temporarily affect aquatic habitat in the Logan River. Implementation would require about 151 construction easements on public land, private residential/agricultural land, and private nonagricultural land. Canal structures would be constructed on or would cross National Forest System land, Logan Golf & Country Club, Ray Hugie Park, Lundstrom Park, and Bonneville Shoreline Trail. Temporary effects to four block groups of low-income populations and three blocks of minority populations would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110081, 740 pages, March 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 22 KW - Water KW - Canals KW - Cost Assessments KW - Diversion Structures KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Irrigation KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Logan River KW - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest KW - Utah KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126920?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRIDENT SUPPORT FACILITIES EXPLOSIVES HANDLING WHARF (EHW-2), NAVAL BASE KITSAP BANGOR, SILVERDALE, KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 19 of 22] T2 - TRIDENT SUPPORT FACILITIES EXPLOSIVES HANDLING WHARF (EHW-2), NAVAL BASE KITSAP BANGOR, SILVERDALE, KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873126917; 14836-0_0019 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, located on the Hood Canal approximately 20 miles west of Seattle, 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 existing EHW alone will not be able to support TRIDENT program requirements. The EHW-2 would be adjacent to but separate from the existing EHW and would consist of two components: the wharf proper (or operations area), including the warping wharf; and access trestle(s). The wharf proper would be either pile-supported or floating. Two types of pile-supported wharf are being considered: a conventional pile-supported wharf and a large-pile wharf. The access trestles would be pile-supported and would be either completely separate or combined for part of their spans. The trestles under either option would come ashore at the same location and tie into existing roads. All piles would be hollow steel pipe piles. Five action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this draft EIS. The action alternatives consist of combinations of two access trestle layouts (separate and combined) and three wharf configurations (conventional pile-supported, large pile, and floating). 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 preferred alternative is the Combined Trestle, Large Pile Wharf Alternative (Alternative 1). 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 TRIDENT program requirements for the eight submarines currently homeported at NBK Bangor and for the TRIDENT II strategic weapons system. Construction duration would be shorter for Alternatives 1 and 3 than for Alternatives 2 and 4, resulting in less seafloor disturbance, less noise, and less of an impact to water quality, air quality, and transportation. Implementation of the proposed action 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 pile driving 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. The setting of the existing EHW, which is National Register of Historic Places-eligible, would be adversely affected by construction. 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: 110080, 945 pages, March 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 19 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Demolition KW - Fish KW - Harbor Structures KW - Marine Mammals KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Munitions KW - Noise KW - Safety Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses 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/873126917?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&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.&rft.title=TRIDENT+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+EXPLOSIVES+HANDLING+WHARF+%28EHW-2%29%2C+NAVAL+BASE+KITSAP+BANGOR%2C+SILVERDALE%2C+KITSAP+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&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 - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 21 of 26] T2 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 873126913; 14837-1_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) system in Cache County, Utah is proposed. In July 2009, a landslide occurred along a hillside in the city of Logan and a section of the LN Canal, a locally managed irrigation canal, broke away causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of a section of the canal. This closure affects other parts of the local irrigation water delivery system, with the result that the canal is not delivering all water allocated to local water shareholders. Cache County is seeking funding assistance through the Emergency Watershed Protection Program to design and construct an irrigation system that will restore irrigation water delivery to LN Canal shareholders. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of U.S. Highway 89). From this point of diversion (POD), the existing LN Canal route generally follows Canyon Road before turning north at about 600 East in Logan. The canal runs northerly through Logan, North Logan, Hyde Park, Smithfield, and unincorporated areas under the jurisdiction of Cache County and terminates north of Smithfield. After the landslide, a temporary water delivery system was established for LN Canal shareholders, but this system is able to deliver only about 50 percent of the water shares associated with the LN Canal. The study area is roughly bounded by 3100 North on the north (near Hyde Park), the Logan River on the south (in Logan), about 600 East on the west (in Logan and North Logan), and about 2000 East on the east (in Logan and North Logan). A narrow corridor also extends into Logan Canyon along the Logan River to about Second Dam. Three action alternatives (Purple Alternative, Orange Alternative, and Blue Alternative) and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the Purple Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, the POD for the LN Canal water would be moved upstream to the Logan Hyde Park Smithfield (LHPS) Canal POD structure below Second Dam. The LHPS Canal POD would be reconstructed as a box culvert between the POD and about Lundstrom Park/1500 North in Logan to accommodate an increase in the amount of water that could be diverted. LN Canal shares would be diverted from the box culvert into a pipeline that travels under city streets and discharges to the existing LN Canal at about 1500 North. The box culvert would end at Lundstrom Park/1500 North, and LHPS Canal shares would continue to flow in the existing LHPS Canal to its shareholders downstream. At the new 1500 North discharge point on the LN Canal, some water would be delivered to upstream users in a pressure pipe installed in the existing canal maintenance road. The remaining water would be discharged into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream users. For LN Canal shareholders between the POD and the Laub Diversion, a six-inch-diameter pipeline would be constructed in the existing canal. The Purple Alternative would include removing structures from 14 properties along Canyon Road in Logan at the toe of the historically unstable part of the Logan Bluff. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is between $20.4 million and $22.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would restore the safe delivery of water that was conveyed by the LN Canal before the 2009 landslide, and address the remaining hazards associated with the landslide zone between about 750 East and 1100 East. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would require removing riparian vegetation on the Logan River and upland and landscaped vegetation along the canal alignments. Modifications to the LHPS Canal POD could temporarily affect aquatic habitat in the Logan River. Implementation would require about 151 construction easements on public land, private residential/agricultural land, and private nonagricultural land. Canal structures would be constructed on or would cross National Forest System land, Logan Golf & Country Club, Ray Hugie Park, Lundstrom Park, and Bonneville Shoreline Trail. Temporary effects to four block groups of low-income populations and three blocks of minority populations would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110081, 740 pages, March 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 21 KW - Water KW - Canals KW - Cost Assessments KW - Diversion Structures KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Irrigation KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Logan River KW - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest KW - Utah KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126913?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRIDENT SUPPORT FACILITIES EXPLOSIVES HANDLING WHARF (EHW-2), NAVAL BASE KITSAP BANGOR, SILVERDALE, KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 18 of 22] T2 - TRIDENT SUPPORT FACILITIES EXPLOSIVES HANDLING WHARF (EHW-2), NAVAL BASE KITSAP BANGOR, SILVERDALE, KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873126911; 14836-0_0018 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, located on the Hood Canal approximately 20 miles west of Seattle, 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 existing EHW alone will not be able to support TRIDENT program requirements. The EHW-2 would be adjacent to but separate from the existing EHW and would consist of two components: the wharf proper (or operations area), including the warping wharf; and access trestle(s). The wharf proper would be either pile-supported or floating. Two types of pile-supported wharf are being considered: a conventional pile-supported wharf and a large-pile wharf. The access trestles would be pile-supported and would be either completely separate or combined for part of their spans. The trestles under either option would come ashore at the same location and tie into existing roads. All piles would be hollow steel pipe piles. Five action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this draft EIS. The action alternatives consist of combinations of two access trestle layouts (separate and combined) and three wharf configurations (conventional pile-supported, large pile, and floating). 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 preferred alternative is the Combined Trestle, Large Pile Wharf Alternative (Alternative 1). 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 TRIDENT program requirements for the eight submarines currently homeported at NBK Bangor and for the TRIDENT II strategic weapons system. Construction duration would be shorter for Alternatives 1 and 3 than for Alternatives 2 and 4, resulting in less seafloor disturbance, less noise, and less of an impact to water quality, air quality, and transportation. Implementation of the proposed action 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 pile driving 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. The setting of the existing EHW, which is National Register of Historic Places-eligible, would be adversely affected by construction. 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: 110080, 945 pages, March 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 18 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Demolition KW - Fish KW - Harbor Structures KW - Marine Mammals KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Munitions KW - Noise KW - Safety Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses 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/873126911?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&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.&rft.title=TRIDENT+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+EXPLOSIVES+HANDLING+WHARF+%28EHW-2%29%2C+NAVAL+BASE+KITSAP+BANGOR%2C+SILVERDALE%2C+KITSAP+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&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 - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 6 of 26] T2 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 873126907; 14837-1_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) system in Cache County, Utah is proposed. In July 2009, a landslide occurred along a hillside in the city of Logan and a section of the LN Canal, a locally managed irrigation canal, broke away causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of a section of the canal. This closure affects other parts of the local irrigation water delivery system, with the result that the canal is not delivering all water allocated to local water shareholders. Cache County is seeking funding assistance through the Emergency Watershed Protection Program to design and construct an irrigation system that will restore irrigation water delivery to LN Canal shareholders. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of U.S. Highway 89). From this point of diversion (POD), the existing LN Canal route generally follows Canyon Road before turning north at about 600 East in Logan. The canal runs northerly through Logan, North Logan, Hyde Park, Smithfield, and unincorporated areas under the jurisdiction of Cache County and terminates north of Smithfield. After the landslide, a temporary water delivery system was established for LN Canal shareholders, but this system is able to deliver only about 50 percent of the water shares associated with the LN Canal. The study area is roughly bounded by 3100 North on the north (near Hyde Park), the Logan River on the south (in Logan), about 600 East on the west (in Logan and North Logan), and about 2000 East on the east (in Logan and North Logan). A narrow corridor also extends into Logan Canyon along the Logan River to about Second Dam. Three action alternatives (Purple Alternative, Orange Alternative, and Blue Alternative) and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the Purple Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, the POD for the LN Canal water would be moved upstream to the Logan Hyde Park Smithfield (LHPS) Canal POD structure below Second Dam. The LHPS Canal POD would be reconstructed as a box culvert between the POD and about Lundstrom Park/1500 North in Logan to accommodate an increase in the amount of water that could be diverted. LN Canal shares would be diverted from the box culvert into a pipeline that travels under city streets and discharges to the existing LN Canal at about 1500 North. The box culvert would end at Lundstrom Park/1500 North, and LHPS Canal shares would continue to flow in the existing LHPS Canal to its shareholders downstream. At the new 1500 North discharge point on the LN Canal, some water would be delivered to upstream users in a pressure pipe installed in the existing canal maintenance road. The remaining water would be discharged into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream users. For LN Canal shareholders between the POD and the Laub Diversion, a six-inch-diameter pipeline would be constructed in the existing canal. The Purple Alternative would include removing structures from 14 properties along Canyon Road in Logan at the toe of the historically unstable part of the Logan Bluff. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is between $20.4 million and $22.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would restore the safe delivery of water that was conveyed by the LN Canal before the 2009 landslide, and address the remaining hazards associated with the landslide zone between about 750 East and 1100 East. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would require removing riparian vegetation on the Logan River and upland and landscaped vegetation along the canal alignments. Modifications to the LHPS Canal POD could temporarily affect aquatic habitat in the Logan River. Implementation would require about 151 construction easements on public land, private residential/agricultural land, and private nonagricultural land. Canal structures would be constructed on or would cross National Forest System land, Logan Golf & Country Club, Ray Hugie Park, Lundstrom Park, and Bonneville Shoreline Trail. Temporary effects to four block groups of low-income populations and three blocks of minority populations would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110081, 740 pages, March 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Water KW - Canals KW - Cost Assessments KW - Diversion Structures KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Irrigation KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Logan River KW - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest KW - Utah KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126907?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 20 of 26] T2 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 873126793; 14837-1_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) system in Cache County, Utah is proposed. In July 2009, a landslide occurred along a hillside in the city of Logan and a section of the LN Canal, a locally managed irrigation canal, broke away causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of a section of the canal. This closure affects other parts of the local irrigation water delivery system, with the result that the canal is not delivering all water allocated to local water shareholders. Cache County is seeking funding assistance through the Emergency Watershed Protection Program to design and construct an irrigation system that will restore irrigation water delivery to LN Canal shareholders. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of U.S. Highway 89). From this point of diversion (POD), the existing LN Canal route generally follows Canyon Road before turning north at about 600 East in Logan. The canal runs northerly through Logan, North Logan, Hyde Park, Smithfield, and unincorporated areas under the jurisdiction of Cache County and terminates north of Smithfield. After the landslide, a temporary water delivery system was established for LN Canal shareholders, but this system is able to deliver only about 50 percent of the water shares associated with the LN Canal. The study area is roughly bounded by 3100 North on the north (near Hyde Park), the Logan River on the south (in Logan), about 600 East on the west (in Logan and North Logan), and about 2000 East on the east (in Logan and North Logan). A narrow corridor also extends into Logan Canyon along the Logan River to about Second Dam. Three action alternatives (Purple Alternative, Orange Alternative, and Blue Alternative) and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the Purple Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, the POD for the LN Canal water would be moved upstream to the Logan Hyde Park Smithfield (LHPS) Canal POD structure below Second Dam. The LHPS Canal POD would be reconstructed as a box culvert between the POD and about Lundstrom Park/1500 North in Logan to accommodate an increase in the amount of water that could be diverted. LN Canal shares would be diverted from the box culvert into a pipeline that travels under city streets and discharges to the existing LN Canal at about 1500 North. The box culvert would end at Lundstrom Park/1500 North, and LHPS Canal shares would continue to flow in the existing LHPS Canal to its shareholders downstream. At the new 1500 North discharge point on the LN Canal, some water would be delivered to upstream users in a pressure pipe installed in the existing canal maintenance road. The remaining water would be discharged into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream users. For LN Canal shareholders between the POD and the Laub Diversion, a six-inch-diameter pipeline would be constructed in the existing canal. The Purple Alternative would include removing structures from 14 properties along Canyon Road in Logan at the toe of the historically unstable part of the Logan Bluff. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is between $20.4 million and $22.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would restore the safe delivery of water that was conveyed by the LN Canal before the 2009 landslide, and address the remaining hazards associated with the landslide zone between about 750 East and 1100 East. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would require removing riparian vegetation on the Logan River and upland and landscaped vegetation along the canal alignments. Modifications to the LHPS Canal POD could temporarily affect aquatic habitat in the Logan River. Implementation would require about 151 construction easements on public land, private residential/agricultural land, and private nonagricultural land. Canal structures would be constructed on or would cross National Forest System land, Logan Golf & Country Club, Ray Hugie Park, Lundstrom Park, and Bonneville Shoreline Trail. Temporary effects to four block groups of low-income populations and three blocks of minority populations would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110081, 740 pages, March 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 20 KW - Water KW - Canals KW - Cost Assessments KW - Diversion Structures KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Irrigation KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Logan River KW - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest KW - Utah KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126793?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 5 of 26] T2 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 873126788; 14837-1_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) system in Cache County, Utah is proposed. In July 2009, a landslide occurred along a hillside in the city of Logan and a section of the LN Canal, a locally managed irrigation canal, broke away causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of a section of the canal. This closure affects other parts of the local irrigation water delivery system, with the result that the canal is not delivering all water allocated to local water shareholders. Cache County is seeking funding assistance through the Emergency Watershed Protection Program to design and construct an irrigation system that will restore irrigation water delivery to LN Canal shareholders. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of U.S. Highway 89). From this point of diversion (POD), the existing LN Canal route generally follows Canyon Road before turning north at about 600 East in Logan. The canal runs northerly through Logan, North Logan, Hyde Park, Smithfield, and unincorporated areas under the jurisdiction of Cache County and terminates north of Smithfield. After the landslide, a temporary water delivery system was established for LN Canal shareholders, but this system is able to deliver only about 50 percent of the water shares associated with the LN Canal. The study area is roughly bounded by 3100 North on the north (near Hyde Park), the Logan River on the south (in Logan), about 600 East on the west (in Logan and North Logan), and about 2000 East on the east (in Logan and North Logan). A narrow corridor also extends into Logan Canyon along the Logan River to about Second Dam. Three action alternatives (Purple Alternative, Orange Alternative, and Blue Alternative) and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the Purple Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, the POD for the LN Canal water would be moved upstream to the Logan Hyde Park Smithfield (LHPS) Canal POD structure below Second Dam. The LHPS Canal POD would be reconstructed as a box culvert between the POD and about Lundstrom Park/1500 North in Logan to accommodate an increase in the amount of water that could be diverted. LN Canal shares would be diverted from the box culvert into a pipeline that travels under city streets and discharges to the existing LN Canal at about 1500 North. The box culvert would end at Lundstrom Park/1500 North, and LHPS Canal shares would continue to flow in the existing LHPS Canal to its shareholders downstream. At the new 1500 North discharge point on the LN Canal, some water would be delivered to upstream users in a pressure pipe installed in the existing canal maintenance road. The remaining water would be discharged into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream users. For LN Canal shareholders between the POD and the Laub Diversion, a six-inch-diameter pipeline would be constructed in the existing canal. The Purple Alternative would include removing structures from 14 properties along Canyon Road in Logan at the toe of the historically unstable part of the Logan Bluff. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is between $20.4 million and $22.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would restore the safe delivery of water that was conveyed by the LN Canal before the 2009 landslide, and address the remaining hazards associated with the landslide zone between about 750 East and 1100 East. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would require removing riparian vegetation on the Logan River and upland and landscaped vegetation along the canal alignments. Modifications to the LHPS Canal POD could temporarily affect aquatic habitat in the Logan River. Implementation would require about 151 construction easements on public land, private residential/agricultural land, and private nonagricultural land. Canal structures would be constructed on or would cross National Forest System land, Logan Golf & Country Club, Ray Hugie Park, Lundstrom Park, and Bonneville Shoreline Trail. Temporary effects to four block groups of low-income populations and three blocks of minority populations would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110081, 740 pages, March 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Water KW - Canals KW - Cost Assessments KW - Diversion Structures KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Irrigation KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Logan River KW - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest KW - Utah KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126788?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 4 of 26] T2 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 873126784; 14837-1_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) system in Cache County, Utah is proposed. In July 2009, a landslide occurred along a hillside in the city of Logan and a section of the LN Canal, a locally managed irrigation canal, broke away causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of a section of the canal. This closure affects other parts of the local irrigation water delivery system, with the result that the canal is not delivering all water allocated to local water shareholders. Cache County is seeking funding assistance through the Emergency Watershed Protection Program to design and construct an irrigation system that will restore irrigation water delivery to LN Canal shareholders. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of U.S. Highway 89). From this point of diversion (POD), the existing LN Canal route generally follows Canyon Road before turning north at about 600 East in Logan. The canal runs northerly through Logan, North Logan, Hyde Park, Smithfield, and unincorporated areas under the jurisdiction of Cache County and terminates north of Smithfield. After the landslide, a temporary water delivery system was established for LN Canal shareholders, but this system is able to deliver only about 50 percent of the water shares associated with the LN Canal. The study area is roughly bounded by 3100 North on the north (near Hyde Park), the Logan River on the south (in Logan), about 600 East on the west (in Logan and North Logan), and about 2000 East on the east (in Logan and North Logan). A narrow corridor also extends into Logan Canyon along the Logan River to about Second Dam. Three action alternatives (Purple Alternative, Orange Alternative, and Blue Alternative) and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the Purple Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, the POD for the LN Canal water would be moved upstream to the Logan Hyde Park Smithfield (LHPS) Canal POD structure below Second Dam. The LHPS Canal POD would be reconstructed as a box culvert between the POD and about Lundstrom Park/1500 North in Logan to accommodate an increase in the amount of water that could be diverted. LN Canal shares would be diverted from the box culvert into a pipeline that travels under city streets and discharges to the existing LN Canal at about 1500 North. The box culvert would end at Lundstrom Park/1500 North, and LHPS Canal shares would continue to flow in the existing LHPS Canal to its shareholders downstream. At the new 1500 North discharge point on the LN Canal, some water would be delivered to upstream users in a pressure pipe installed in the existing canal maintenance road. The remaining water would be discharged into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream users. For LN Canal shareholders between the POD and the Laub Diversion, a six-inch-diameter pipeline would be constructed in the existing canal. The Purple Alternative would include removing structures from 14 properties along Canyon Road in Logan at the toe of the historically unstable part of the Logan Bluff. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is between $20.4 million and $22.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would restore the safe delivery of water that was conveyed by the LN Canal before the 2009 landslide, and address the remaining hazards associated with the landslide zone between about 750 East and 1100 East. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would require removing riparian vegetation on the Logan River and upland and landscaped vegetation along the canal alignments. Modifications to the LHPS Canal POD could temporarily affect aquatic habitat in the Logan River. Implementation would require about 151 construction easements on public land, private residential/agricultural land, and private nonagricultural land. Canal structures would be constructed on or would cross National Forest System land, Logan Golf & Country Club, Ray Hugie Park, Lundstrom Park, and Bonneville Shoreline Trail. Temporary effects to four block groups of low-income populations and three blocks of minority populations would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110081, 740 pages, March 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Water KW - Canals KW - Cost Assessments KW - Diversion Structures KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Irrigation KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Logan River KW - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest KW - Utah KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126784?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 3 of 26] T2 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 873126779; 14837-1_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) system in Cache County, Utah is proposed. In July 2009, a landslide occurred along a hillside in the city of Logan and a section of the LN Canal, a locally managed irrigation canal, broke away causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of a section of the canal. This closure affects other parts of the local irrigation water delivery system, with the result that the canal is not delivering all water allocated to local water shareholders. Cache County is seeking funding assistance through the Emergency Watershed Protection Program to design and construct an irrigation system that will restore irrigation water delivery to LN Canal shareholders. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of U.S. Highway 89). From this point of diversion (POD), the existing LN Canal route generally follows Canyon Road before turning north at about 600 East in Logan. The canal runs northerly through Logan, North Logan, Hyde Park, Smithfield, and unincorporated areas under the jurisdiction of Cache County and terminates north of Smithfield. After the landslide, a temporary water delivery system was established for LN Canal shareholders, but this system is able to deliver only about 50 percent of the water shares associated with the LN Canal. The study area is roughly bounded by 3100 North on the north (near Hyde Park), the Logan River on the south (in Logan), about 600 East on the west (in Logan and North Logan), and about 2000 East on the east (in Logan and North Logan). A narrow corridor also extends into Logan Canyon along the Logan River to about Second Dam. Three action alternatives (Purple Alternative, Orange Alternative, and Blue Alternative) and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the Purple Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, the POD for the LN Canal water would be moved upstream to the Logan Hyde Park Smithfield (LHPS) Canal POD structure below Second Dam. The LHPS Canal POD would be reconstructed as a box culvert between the POD and about Lundstrom Park/1500 North in Logan to accommodate an increase in the amount of water that could be diverted. LN Canal shares would be diverted from the box culvert into a pipeline that travels under city streets and discharges to the existing LN Canal at about 1500 North. The box culvert would end at Lundstrom Park/1500 North, and LHPS Canal shares would continue to flow in the existing LHPS Canal to its shareholders downstream. At the new 1500 North discharge point on the LN Canal, some water would be delivered to upstream users in a pressure pipe installed in the existing canal maintenance road. The remaining water would be discharged into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream users. For LN Canal shareholders between the POD and the Laub Diversion, a six-inch-diameter pipeline would be constructed in the existing canal. The Purple Alternative would include removing structures from 14 properties along Canyon Road in Logan at the toe of the historically unstable part of the Logan Bluff. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is between $20.4 million and $22.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would restore the safe delivery of water that was conveyed by the LN Canal before the 2009 landslide, and address the remaining hazards associated with the landslide zone between about 750 East and 1100 East. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would require removing riparian vegetation on the Logan River and upland and landscaped vegetation along the canal alignments. Modifications to the LHPS Canal POD could temporarily affect aquatic habitat in the Logan River. Implementation would require about 151 construction easements on public land, private residential/agricultural land, and private nonagricultural land. Canal structures would be constructed on or would cross National Forest System land, Logan Golf & Country Club, Ray Hugie Park, Lundstrom Park, and Bonneville Shoreline Trail. Temporary effects to four block groups of low-income populations and three blocks of minority populations would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110081, 740 pages, March 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Canals KW - Cost Assessments KW - Diversion Structures KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Irrigation KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Logan River KW - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest KW - Utah KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126779?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRIDENT SUPPORT FACILITIES EXPLOSIVES HANDLING WHARF (EHW-2), NAVAL BASE KITSAP BANGOR, SILVERDALE, KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 5 of 22] T2 - TRIDENT SUPPORT FACILITIES EXPLOSIVES HANDLING WHARF (EHW-2), NAVAL BASE KITSAP BANGOR, SILVERDALE, KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873126718; 14836-0_0005 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, located on the Hood Canal approximately 20 miles west of Seattle, 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 existing EHW alone will not be able to support TRIDENT program requirements. The EHW-2 would be adjacent to but separate from the existing EHW and would consist of two components: the wharf proper (or operations area), including the warping wharf; and access trestle(s). The wharf proper would be either pile-supported or floating. Two types of pile-supported wharf are being considered: a conventional pile-supported wharf and a large-pile wharf. The access trestles would be pile-supported and would be either completely separate or combined for part of their spans. The trestles under either option would come ashore at the same location and tie into existing roads. All piles would be hollow steel pipe piles. Five action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this draft EIS. The action alternatives consist of combinations of two access trestle layouts (separate and combined) and three wharf configurations (conventional pile-supported, large pile, and floating). 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 preferred alternative is the Combined Trestle, Large Pile Wharf Alternative (Alternative 1). 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 TRIDENT program requirements for the eight submarines currently homeported at NBK Bangor and for the TRIDENT II strategic weapons system. Construction duration would be shorter for Alternatives 1 and 3 than for Alternatives 2 and 4, resulting in less seafloor disturbance, less noise, and less of an impact to water quality, air quality, and transportation. Implementation of the proposed action 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 pile driving 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. The setting of the existing EHW, which is National Register of Historic Places-eligible, would be adversely affected by construction. 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: 110080, 945 pages, March 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Demolition KW - Fish KW - Harbor Structures KW - Marine Mammals KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Munitions KW - Noise KW - Safety Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses 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/873126718?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&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.&rft.title=TRIDENT+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+EXPLOSIVES+HANDLING+WHARF+%28EHW-2%29%2C+NAVAL+BASE+KITSAP+BANGOR%2C+SILVERDALE%2C+KITSAP+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&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 - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRIDENT SUPPORT FACILITIES EXPLOSIVES HANDLING WHARF (EHW-2), NAVAL BASE KITSAP BANGOR, SILVERDALE, KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 4 of 22] T2 - TRIDENT SUPPORT FACILITIES EXPLOSIVES HANDLING WHARF (EHW-2), NAVAL BASE KITSAP BANGOR, SILVERDALE, KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873126717; 14836-0_0004 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, located on the Hood Canal approximately 20 miles west of Seattle, 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 existing EHW alone will not be able to support TRIDENT program requirements. The EHW-2 would be adjacent to but separate from the existing EHW and would consist of two components: the wharf proper (or operations area), including the warping wharf; and access trestle(s). The wharf proper would be either pile-supported or floating. Two types of pile-supported wharf are being considered: a conventional pile-supported wharf and a large-pile wharf. The access trestles would be pile-supported and would be either completely separate or combined for part of their spans. The trestles under either option would come ashore at the same location and tie into existing roads. All piles would be hollow steel pipe piles. Five action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this draft EIS. The action alternatives consist of combinations of two access trestle layouts (separate and combined) and three wharf configurations (conventional pile-supported, large pile, and floating). 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 preferred alternative is the Combined Trestle, Large Pile Wharf Alternative (Alternative 1). 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 TRIDENT program requirements for the eight submarines currently homeported at NBK Bangor and for the TRIDENT II strategic weapons system. Construction duration would be shorter for Alternatives 1 and 3 than for Alternatives 2 and 4, resulting in less seafloor disturbance, less noise, and less of an impact to water quality, air quality, and transportation. Implementation of the proposed action 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 pile driving 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. The setting of the existing EHW, which is National Register of Historic Places-eligible, would be adversely affected by construction. 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: 110080, 945 pages, March 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Demolition KW - Fish KW - Harbor Structures KW - Marine Mammals KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Munitions KW - Noise KW - Safety Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses 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/873126717?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&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.&rft.title=TRIDENT+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+EXPLOSIVES+HANDLING+WHARF+%28EHW-2%29%2C+NAVAL+BASE+KITSAP+BANGOR%2C+SILVERDALE%2C+KITSAP+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&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 - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRIDENT SUPPORT FACILITIES EXPLOSIVES HANDLING WHARF (EHW-2), NAVAL BASE KITSAP BANGOR, SILVERDALE, KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 9 of 22] T2 - TRIDENT SUPPORT FACILITIES EXPLOSIVES HANDLING WHARF (EHW-2), NAVAL BASE KITSAP BANGOR, SILVERDALE, KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873126702; 14836-0_0009 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, located on the Hood Canal approximately 20 miles west of Seattle, 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 existing EHW alone will not be able to support TRIDENT program requirements. The EHW-2 would be adjacent to but separate from the existing EHW and would consist of two components: the wharf proper (or operations area), including the warping wharf; and access trestle(s). The wharf proper would be either pile-supported or floating. Two types of pile-supported wharf are being considered: a conventional pile-supported wharf and a large-pile wharf. The access trestles would be pile-supported and would be either completely separate or combined for part of their spans. The trestles under either option would come ashore at the same location and tie into existing roads. All piles would be hollow steel pipe piles. Five action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this draft EIS. The action alternatives consist of combinations of two access trestle layouts (separate and combined) and three wharf configurations (conventional pile-supported, large pile, and floating). 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 preferred alternative is the Combined Trestle, Large Pile Wharf Alternative (Alternative 1). 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 TRIDENT program requirements for the eight submarines currently homeported at NBK Bangor and for the TRIDENT II strategic weapons system. Construction duration would be shorter for Alternatives 1 and 3 than for Alternatives 2 and 4, resulting in less seafloor disturbance, less noise, and less of an impact to water quality, air quality, and transportation. Implementation of the proposed action 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 pile driving 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. The setting of the existing EHW, which is National Register of Historic Places-eligible, would be adversely affected by construction. 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: 110080, 945 pages, March 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Demolition KW - Fish KW - Harbor Structures KW - Marine Mammals KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Munitions KW - Noise KW - Safety Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses 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/873126702?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&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.&rft.title=TRIDENT+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+EXPLOSIVES+HANDLING+WHARF+%28EHW-2%29%2C+NAVAL+BASE+KITSAP+BANGOR%2C+SILVERDALE%2C+KITSAP+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&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 - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRIDENT SUPPORT FACILITIES EXPLOSIVES HANDLING WHARF (EHW-2), NAVAL BASE KITSAP BANGOR, SILVERDALE, KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 8 of 22] T2 - TRIDENT SUPPORT FACILITIES EXPLOSIVES HANDLING WHARF (EHW-2), NAVAL BASE KITSAP BANGOR, SILVERDALE, KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873126700; 14836-0_0008 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, located on the Hood Canal approximately 20 miles west of Seattle, 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 existing EHW alone will not be able to support TRIDENT program requirements. The EHW-2 would be adjacent to but separate from the existing EHW and would consist of two components: the wharf proper (or operations area), including the warping wharf; and access trestle(s). The wharf proper would be either pile-supported or floating. Two types of pile-supported wharf are being considered: a conventional pile-supported wharf and a large-pile wharf. The access trestles would be pile-supported and would be either completely separate or combined for part of their spans. The trestles under either option would come ashore at the same location and tie into existing roads. All piles would be hollow steel pipe piles. Five action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this draft EIS. The action alternatives consist of combinations of two access trestle layouts (separate and combined) and three wharf configurations (conventional pile-supported, large pile, and floating). 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 preferred alternative is the Combined Trestle, Large Pile Wharf Alternative (Alternative 1). 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 TRIDENT program requirements for the eight submarines currently homeported at NBK Bangor and for the TRIDENT II strategic weapons system. Construction duration would be shorter for Alternatives 1 and 3 than for Alternatives 2 and 4, resulting in less seafloor disturbance, less noise, and less of an impact to water quality, air quality, and transportation. Implementation of the proposed action 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 pile driving 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. The setting of the existing EHW, which is National Register of Historic Places-eligible, would be adversely affected by construction. 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: 110080, 945 pages, March 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Demolition KW - Fish KW - Harbor Structures KW - Marine Mammals KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Munitions KW - Noise KW - Safety Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses 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/873126700?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&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.&rft.title=TRIDENT+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+EXPLOSIVES+HANDLING+WHARF+%28EHW-2%29%2C+NAVAL+BASE+KITSAP+BANGOR%2C+SILVERDALE%2C+KITSAP+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&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 - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRIDENT SUPPORT FACILITIES EXPLOSIVES HANDLING WHARF (EHW-2), NAVAL BASE KITSAP BANGOR, SILVERDALE, KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 7 of 22] T2 - TRIDENT SUPPORT FACILITIES EXPLOSIVES HANDLING WHARF (EHW-2), NAVAL BASE KITSAP BANGOR, SILVERDALE, KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873126698; 14836-0_0007 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, located on the Hood Canal approximately 20 miles west of Seattle, 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 existing EHW alone will not be able to support TRIDENT program requirements. The EHW-2 would be adjacent to but separate from the existing EHW and would consist of two components: the wharf proper (or operations area), including the warping wharf; and access trestle(s). The wharf proper would be either pile-supported or floating. Two types of pile-supported wharf are being considered: a conventional pile-supported wharf and a large-pile wharf. The access trestles would be pile-supported and would be either completely separate or combined for part of their spans. The trestles under either option would come ashore at the same location and tie into existing roads. All piles would be hollow steel pipe piles. Five action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this draft EIS. The action alternatives consist of combinations of two access trestle layouts (separate and combined) and three wharf configurations (conventional pile-supported, large pile, and floating). 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 preferred alternative is the Combined Trestle, Large Pile Wharf Alternative (Alternative 1). 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 TRIDENT program requirements for the eight submarines currently homeported at NBK Bangor and for the TRIDENT II strategic weapons system. Construction duration would be shorter for Alternatives 1 and 3 than for Alternatives 2 and 4, resulting in less seafloor disturbance, less noise, and less of an impact to water quality, air quality, and transportation. Implementation of the proposed action 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 pile driving 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. The setting of the existing EHW, which is National Register of Historic Places-eligible, would be adversely affected by construction. 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: 110080, 945 pages, March 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Demolition KW - Fish KW - Harbor Structures KW - Marine Mammals KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Munitions KW - Noise KW - Safety Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses 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/873126698?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&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.&rft.title=TRIDENT+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+EXPLOSIVES+HANDLING+WHARF+%28EHW-2%29%2C+NAVAL+BASE+KITSAP+BANGOR%2C+SILVERDALE%2C+KITSAP+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&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 - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRIDENT SUPPORT FACILITIES EXPLOSIVES HANDLING WHARF (EHW-2), NAVAL BASE KITSAP BANGOR, SILVERDALE, KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 6 of 22] T2 - TRIDENT SUPPORT FACILITIES EXPLOSIVES HANDLING WHARF (EHW-2), NAVAL BASE KITSAP BANGOR, SILVERDALE, KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873126696; 14836-0_0006 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, located on the Hood Canal approximately 20 miles west of Seattle, 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 existing EHW alone will not be able to support TRIDENT program requirements. The EHW-2 would be adjacent to but separate from the existing EHW and would consist of two components: the wharf proper (or operations area), including the warping wharf; and access trestle(s). The wharf proper would be either pile-supported or floating. Two types of pile-supported wharf are being considered: a conventional pile-supported wharf and a large-pile wharf. The access trestles would be pile-supported and would be either completely separate or combined for part of their spans. The trestles under either option would come ashore at the same location and tie into existing roads. All piles would be hollow steel pipe piles. Five action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this draft EIS. The action alternatives consist of combinations of two access trestle layouts (separate and combined) and three wharf configurations (conventional pile-supported, large pile, and floating). 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 preferred alternative is the Combined Trestle, Large Pile Wharf Alternative (Alternative 1). 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 TRIDENT program requirements for the eight submarines currently homeported at NBK Bangor and for the TRIDENT II strategic weapons system. Construction duration would be shorter for Alternatives 1 and 3 than for Alternatives 2 and 4, resulting in less seafloor disturbance, less noise, and less of an impact to water quality, air quality, and transportation. Implementation of the proposed action 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 pile driving 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. The setting of the existing EHW, which is National Register of Historic Places-eligible, would be adversely affected by construction. 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: 110080, 945 pages, March 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Demolition KW - Fish KW - Harbor Structures KW - Marine Mammals KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Munitions KW - Noise KW - Safety Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses 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/873126696?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&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.&rft.title=TRIDENT+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+EXPLOSIVES+HANDLING+WHARF+%28EHW-2%29%2C+NAVAL+BASE+KITSAP+BANGOR%2C+SILVERDALE%2C+KITSAP+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&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 - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRIDENT SUPPORT FACILITIES EXPLOSIVES HANDLING WHARF (EHW-2), NAVAL BASE KITSAP BANGOR, SILVERDALE, KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 3 of 22] T2 - TRIDENT SUPPORT FACILITIES EXPLOSIVES HANDLING WHARF (EHW-2), NAVAL BASE KITSAP BANGOR, SILVERDALE, KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873126694; 14836-0_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, located on the Hood Canal approximately 20 miles west of Seattle, 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 existing EHW alone will not be able to support TRIDENT program requirements. The EHW-2 would be adjacent to but separate from the existing EHW and would consist of two components: the wharf proper (or operations area), including the warping wharf; and access trestle(s). The wharf proper would be either pile-supported or floating. Two types of pile-supported wharf are being considered: a conventional pile-supported wharf and a large-pile wharf. The access trestles would be pile-supported and would be either completely separate or combined for part of their spans. The trestles under either option would come ashore at the same location and tie into existing roads. All piles would be hollow steel pipe piles. Five action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this draft EIS. The action alternatives consist of combinations of two access trestle layouts (separate and combined) and three wharf configurations (conventional pile-supported, large pile, and floating). 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 preferred alternative is the Combined Trestle, Large Pile Wharf Alternative (Alternative 1). 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 TRIDENT program requirements for the eight submarines currently homeported at NBK Bangor and for the TRIDENT II strategic weapons system. Construction duration would be shorter for Alternatives 1 and 3 than for Alternatives 2 and 4, resulting in less seafloor disturbance, less noise, and less of an impact to water quality, air quality, and transportation. Implementation of the proposed action 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 pile driving 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. The setting of the existing EHW, which is National Register of Historic Places-eligible, would be adversely affected by construction. 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: 110080, 945 pages, March 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Demolition KW - Fish KW - Harbor Structures KW - Marine Mammals KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Munitions KW - Noise KW - Safety Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses 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/873126694?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&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.&rft.title=TRIDENT+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+EXPLOSIVES+HANDLING+WHARF+%28EHW-2%29%2C+NAVAL+BASE+KITSAP+BANGOR%2C+SILVERDALE%2C+KITSAP+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&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 - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRIDENT SUPPORT FACILITIES EXPLOSIVES HANDLING WHARF (EHW-2), NAVAL BASE KITSAP BANGOR, SILVERDALE, KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 2 of 22] T2 - TRIDENT SUPPORT FACILITIES EXPLOSIVES HANDLING WHARF (EHW-2), NAVAL BASE KITSAP BANGOR, SILVERDALE, KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873126692; 14836-0_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, located on the Hood Canal approximately 20 miles west of Seattle, 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 existing EHW alone will not be able to support TRIDENT program requirements. The EHW-2 would be adjacent to but separate from the existing EHW and would consist of two components: the wharf proper (or operations area), including the warping wharf; and access trestle(s). The wharf proper would be either pile-supported or floating. Two types of pile-supported wharf are being considered: a conventional pile-supported wharf and a large-pile wharf. The access trestles would be pile-supported and would be either completely separate or combined for part of their spans. The trestles under either option would come ashore at the same location and tie into existing roads. All piles would be hollow steel pipe piles. Five action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this draft EIS. The action alternatives consist of combinations of two access trestle layouts (separate and combined) and three wharf configurations (conventional pile-supported, large pile, and floating). 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 preferred alternative is the Combined Trestle, Large Pile Wharf Alternative (Alternative 1). 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 TRIDENT program requirements for the eight submarines currently homeported at NBK Bangor and for the TRIDENT II strategic weapons system. Construction duration would be shorter for Alternatives 1 and 3 than for Alternatives 2 and 4, resulting in less seafloor disturbance, less noise, and less of an impact to water quality, air quality, and transportation. Implementation of the proposed action 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 pile driving 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. The setting of the existing EHW, which is National Register of Historic Places-eligible, would be adversely affected by construction. 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: 110080, 945 pages, March 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Demolition KW - Fish KW - Harbor Structures KW - Marine Mammals KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Munitions KW - Noise KW - Safety Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses 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/873126692?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&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.&rft.title=TRIDENT+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+EXPLOSIVES+HANDLING+WHARF+%28EHW-2%29%2C+NAVAL+BASE+KITSAP+BANGOR%2C+SILVERDALE%2C+KITSAP+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&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 - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRIDENT SUPPORT FACILITIES EXPLOSIVES HANDLING WHARF (EHW-2), NAVAL BASE KITSAP BANGOR, SILVERDALE, KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 1 of 22] T2 - TRIDENT SUPPORT FACILITIES EXPLOSIVES HANDLING WHARF (EHW-2), NAVAL BASE KITSAP BANGOR, SILVERDALE, KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873126688; 14836-0_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, located on the Hood Canal approximately 20 miles west of Seattle, 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 existing EHW alone will not be able to support TRIDENT program requirements. The EHW-2 would be adjacent to but separate from the existing EHW and would consist of two components: the wharf proper (or operations area), including the warping wharf; and access trestle(s). The wharf proper would be either pile-supported or floating. Two types of pile-supported wharf are being considered: a conventional pile-supported wharf and a large-pile wharf. The access trestles would be pile-supported and would be either completely separate or combined for part of their spans. The trestles under either option would come ashore at the same location and tie into existing roads. All piles would be hollow steel pipe piles. Five action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this draft EIS. The action alternatives consist of combinations of two access trestle layouts (separate and combined) and three wharf configurations (conventional pile-supported, large pile, and floating). 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 preferred alternative is the Combined Trestle, Large Pile Wharf Alternative (Alternative 1). 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 TRIDENT program requirements for the eight submarines currently homeported at NBK Bangor and for the TRIDENT II strategic weapons system. Construction duration would be shorter for Alternatives 1 and 3 than for Alternatives 2 and 4, resulting in less seafloor disturbance, less noise, and less of an impact to water quality, air quality, and transportation. Implementation of the proposed action 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 pile driving 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. The setting of the existing EHW, which is National Register of Historic Places-eligible, would be adversely affected by construction. 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: 110080, 945 pages, March 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Demolition KW - Fish KW - Harbor Structures KW - Marine Mammals KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Munitions KW - Noise KW - Safety Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses 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/873126688?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&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.&rft.title=TRIDENT+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+EXPLOSIVES+HANDLING+WHARF+%28EHW-2%29%2C+NAVAL+BASE+KITSAP+BANGOR%2C+SILVERDALE%2C+KITSAP+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&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 - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 26 of 26] T2 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 873126680; 14837-1_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) system in Cache County, Utah is proposed. In July 2009, a landslide occurred along a hillside in the city of Logan and a section of the LN Canal, a locally managed irrigation canal, broke away causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of a section of the canal. This closure affects other parts of the local irrigation water delivery system, with the result that the canal is not delivering all water allocated to local water shareholders. Cache County is seeking funding assistance through the Emergency Watershed Protection Program to design and construct an irrigation system that will restore irrigation water delivery to LN Canal shareholders. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of U.S. Highway 89). From this point of diversion (POD), the existing LN Canal route generally follows Canyon Road before turning north at about 600 East in Logan. The canal runs northerly through Logan, North Logan, Hyde Park, Smithfield, and unincorporated areas under the jurisdiction of Cache County and terminates north of Smithfield. After the landslide, a temporary water delivery system was established for LN Canal shareholders, but this system is able to deliver only about 50 percent of the water shares associated with the LN Canal. The study area is roughly bounded by 3100 North on the north (near Hyde Park), the Logan River on the south (in Logan), about 600 East on the west (in Logan and North Logan), and about 2000 East on the east (in Logan and North Logan). A narrow corridor also extends into Logan Canyon along the Logan River to about Second Dam. Three action alternatives (Purple Alternative, Orange Alternative, and Blue Alternative) and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the Purple Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, the POD for the LN Canal water would be moved upstream to the Logan Hyde Park Smithfield (LHPS) Canal POD structure below Second Dam. The LHPS Canal POD would be reconstructed as a box culvert between the POD and about Lundstrom Park/1500 North in Logan to accommodate an increase in the amount of water that could be diverted. LN Canal shares would be diverted from the box culvert into a pipeline that travels under city streets and discharges to the existing LN Canal at about 1500 North. The box culvert would end at Lundstrom Park/1500 North, and LHPS Canal shares would continue to flow in the existing LHPS Canal to its shareholders downstream. At the new 1500 North discharge point on the LN Canal, some water would be delivered to upstream users in a pressure pipe installed in the existing canal maintenance road. The remaining water would be discharged into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream users. For LN Canal shareholders between the POD and the Laub Diversion, a six-inch-diameter pipeline would be constructed in the existing canal. The Purple Alternative would include removing structures from 14 properties along Canyon Road in Logan at the toe of the historically unstable part of the Logan Bluff. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is between $20.4 million and $22.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would restore the safe delivery of water that was conveyed by the LN Canal before the 2009 landslide, and address the remaining hazards associated with the landslide zone between about 750 East and 1100 East. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would require removing riparian vegetation on the Logan River and upland and landscaped vegetation along the canal alignments. Modifications to the LHPS Canal POD could temporarily affect aquatic habitat in the Logan River. Implementation would require about 151 construction easements on public land, private residential/agricultural land, and private nonagricultural land. Canal structures would be constructed on or would cross National Forest System land, Logan Golf & Country Club, Ray Hugie Park, Lundstrom Park, and Bonneville Shoreline Trail. Temporary effects to four block groups of low-income populations and three blocks of minority populations would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110081, 740 pages, March 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 26 KW - Water KW - Canals KW - Cost Assessments KW - Diversion Structures KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Irrigation KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Logan River KW - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest KW - Utah KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126680?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 11 of 26] T2 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 873126678; 14837-1_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) system in Cache County, Utah is proposed. In July 2009, a landslide occurred along a hillside in the city of Logan and a section of the LN Canal, a locally managed irrigation canal, broke away causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of a section of the canal. This closure affects other parts of the local irrigation water delivery system, with the result that the canal is not delivering all water allocated to local water shareholders. Cache County is seeking funding assistance through the Emergency Watershed Protection Program to design and construct an irrigation system that will restore irrigation water delivery to LN Canal shareholders. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of U.S. Highway 89). From this point of diversion (POD), the existing LN Canal route generally follows Canyon Road before turning north at about 600 East in Logan. The canal runs northerly through Logan, North Logan, Hyde Park, Smithfield, and unincorporated areas under the jurisdiction of Cache County and terminates north of Smithfield. After the landslide, a temporary water delivery system was established for LN Canal shareholders, but this system is able to deliver only about 50 percent of the water shares associated with the LN Canal. The study area is roughly bounded by 3100 North on the north (near Hyde Park), the Logan River on the south (in Logan), about 600 East on the west (in Logan and North Logan), and about 2000 East on the east (in Logan and North Logan). A narrow corridor also extends into Logan Canyon along the Logan River to about Second Dam. Three action alternatives (Purple Alternative, Orange Alternative, and Blue Alternative) and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the Purple Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, the POD for the LN Canal water would be moved upstream to the Logan Hyde Park Smithfield (LHPS) Canal POD structure below Second Dam. The LHPS Canal POD would be reconstructed as a box culvert between the POD and about Lundstrom Park/1500 North in Logan to accommodate an increase in the amount of water that could be diverted. LN Canal shares would be diverted from the box culvert into a pipeline that travels under city streets and discharges to the existing LN Canal at about 1500 North. The box culvert would end at Lundstrom Park/1500 North, and LHPS Canal shares would continue to flow in the existing LHPS Canal to its shareholders downstream. At the new 1500 North discharge point on the LN Canal, some water would be delivered to upstream users in a pressure pipe installed in the existing canal maintenance road. The remaining water would be discharged into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream users. For LN Canal shareholders between the POD and the Laub Diversion, a six-inch-diameter pipeline would be constructed in the existing canal. The Purple Alternative would include removing structures from 14 properties along Canyon Road in Logan at the toe of the historically unstable part of the Logan Bluff. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is between $20.4 million and $22.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would restore the safe delivery of water that was conveyed by the LN Canal before the 2009 landslide, and address the remaining hazards associated with the landslide zone between about 750 East and 1100 East. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would require removing riparian vegetation on the Logan River and upland and landscaped vegetation along the canal alignments. Modifications to the LHPS Canal POD could temporarily affect aquatic habitat in the Logan River. Implementation would require about 151 construction easements on public land, private residential/agricultural land, and private nonagricultural land. Canal structures would be constructed on or would cross National Forest System land, Logan Golf & Country Club, Ray Hugie Park, Lundstrom Park, and Bonneville Shoreline Trail. Temporary effects to four block groups of low-income populations and three blocks of minority populations would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110081, 740 pages, March 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Water KW - Canals KW - Cost Assessments KW - Diversion Structures KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Irrigation KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Logan River KW - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest KW - Utah KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126678?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 25 of 26] T2 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 873126676; 14837-1_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) system in Cache County, Utah is proposed. In July 2009, a landslide occurred along a hillside in the city of Logan and a section of the LN Canal, a locally managed irrigation canal, broke away causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of a section of the canal. This closure affects other parts of the local irrigation water delivery system, with the result that the canal is not delivering all water allocated to local water shareholders. Cache County is seeking funding assistance through the Emergency Watershed Protection Program to design and construct an irrigation system that will restore irrigation water delivery to LN Canal shareholders. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of U.S. Highway 89). From this point of diversion (POD), the existing LN Canal route generally follows Canyon Road before turning north at about 600 East in Logan. The canal runs northerly through Logan, North Logan, Hyde Park, Smithfield, and unincorporated areas under the jurisdiction of Cache County and terminates north of Smithfield. After the landslide, a temporary water delivery system was established for LN Canal shareholders, but this system is able to deliver only about 50 percent of the water shares associated with the LN Canal. The study area is roughly bounded by 3100 North on the north (near Hyde Park), the Logan River on the south (in Logan), about 600 East on the west (in Logan and North Logan), and about 2000 East on the east (in Logan and North Logan). A narrow corridor also extends into Logan Canyon along the Logan River to about Second Dam. Three action alternatives (Purple Alternative, Orange Alternative, and Blue Alternative) and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the Purple Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, the POD for the LN Canal water would be moved upstream to the Logan Hyde Park Smithfield (LHPS) Canal POD structure below Second Dam. The LHPS Canal POD would be reconstructed as a box culvert between the POD and about Lundstrom Park/1500 North in Logan to accommodate an increase in the amount of water that could be diverted. LN Canal shares would be diverted from the box culvert into a pipeline that travels under city streets and discharges to the existing LN Canal at about 1500 North. The box culvert would end at Lundstrom Park/1500 North, and LHPS Canal shares would continue to flow in the existing LHPS Canal to its shareholders downstream. At the new 1500 North discharge point on the LN Canal, some water would be delivered to upstream users in a pressure pipe installed in the existing canal maintenance road. The remaining water would be discharged into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream users. For LN Canal shareholders between the POD and the Laub Diversion, a six-inch-diameter pipeline would be constructed in the existing canal. The Purple Alternative would include removing structures from 14 properties along Canyon Road in Logan at the toe of the historically unstable part of the Logan Bluff. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is between $20.4 million and $22.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would restore the safe delivery of water that was conveyed by the LN Canal before the 2009 landslide, and address the remaining hazards associated with the landslide zone between about 750 East and 1100 East. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would require removing riparian vegetation on the Logan River and upland and landscaped vegetation along the canal alignments. Modifications to the LHPS Canal POD could temporarily affect aquatic habitat in the Logan River. Implementation would require about 151 construction easements on public land, private residential/agricultural land, and private nonagricultural land. Canal structures would be constructed on or would cross National Forest System land, Logan Golf & Country Club, Ray Hugie Park, Lundstrom Park, and Bonneville Shoreline Trail. Temporary effects to four block groups of low-income populations and three blocks of minority populations would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110081, 740 pages, March 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 25 KW - Water KW - Canals KW - Cost Assessments KW - Diversion Structures KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Irrigation KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Logan River KW - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest KW - Utah KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126676?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 10 of 26] T2 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 873126673; 14837-1_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) system in Cache County, Utah is proposed. In July 2009, a landslide occurred along a hillside in the city of Logan and a section of the LN Canal, a locally managed irrigation canal, broke away causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of a section of the canal. This closure affects other parts of the local irrigation water delivery system, with the result that the canal is not delivering all water allocated to local water shareholders. Cache County is seeking funding assistance through the Emergency Watershed Protection Program to design and construct an irrigation system that will restore irrigation water delivery to LN Canal shareholders. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of U.S. Highway 89). From this point of diversion (POD), the existing LN Canal route generally follows Canyon Road before turning north at about 600 East in Logan. The canal runs northerly through Logan, North Logan, Hyde Park, Smithfield, and unincorporated areas under the jurisdiction of Cache County and terminates north of Smithfield. After the landslide, a temporary water delivery system was established for LN Canal shareholders, but this system is able to deliver only about 50 percent of the water shares associated with the LN Canal. The study area is roughly bounded by 3100 North on the north (near Hyde Park), the Logan River on the south (in Logan), about 600 East on the west (in Logan and North Logan), and about 2000 East on the east (in Logan and North Logan). A narrow corridor also extends into Logan Canyon along the Logan River to about Second Dam. Three action alternatives (Purple Alternative, Orange Alternative, and Blue Alternative) and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the Purple Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, the POD for the LN Canal water would be moved upstream to the Logan Hyde Park Smithfield (LHPS) Canal POD structure below Second Dam. The LHPS Canal POD would be reconstructed as a box culvert between the POD and about Lundstrom Park/1500 North in Logan to accommodate an increase in the amount of water that could be diverted. LN Canal shares would be diverted from the box culvert into a pipeline that travels under city streets and discharges to the existing LN Canal at about 1500 North. The box culvert would end at Lundstrom Park/1500 North, and LHPS Canal shares would continue to flow in the existing LHPS Canal to its shareholders downstream. At the new 1500 North discharge point on the LN Canal, some water would be delivered to upstream users in a pressure pipe installed in the existing canal maintenance road. The remaining water would be discharged into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream users. For LN Canal shareholders between the POD and the Laub Diversion, a six-inch-diameter pipeline would be constructed in the existing canal. The Purple Alternative would include removing structures from 14 properties along Canyon Road in Logan at the toe of the historically unstable part of the Logan Bluff. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is between $20.4 million and $22.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would restore the safe delivery of water that was conveyed by the LN Canal before the 2009 landslide, and address the remaining hazards associated with the landslide zone between about 750 East and 1100 East. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would require removing riparian vegetation on the Logan River and upland and landscaped vegetation along the canal alignments. Modifications to the LHPS Canal POD could temporarily affect aquatic habitat in the Logan River. Implementation would require about 151 construction easements on public land, private residential/agricultural land, and private nonagricultural land. Canal structures would be constructed on or would cross National Forest System land, Logan Golf & Country Club, Ray Hugie Park, Lundstrom Park, and Bonneville Shoreline Trail. Temporary effects to four block groups of low-income populations and three blocks of minority populations would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110081, 740 pages, March 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Water KW - Canals KW - Cost Assessments KW - Diversion Structures KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Irrigation KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Logan River KW - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest KW - Utah KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126673?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 9 of 26] T2 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 873126670; 14837-1_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) system in Cache County, Utah is proposed. In July 2009, a landslide occurred along a hillside in the city of Logan and a section of the LN Canal, a locally managed irrigation canal, broke away causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of a section of the canal. This closure affects other parts of the local irrigation water delivery system, with the result that the canal is not delivering all water allocated to local water shareholders. Cache County is seeking funding assistance through the Emergency Watershed Protection Program to design and construct an irrigation system that will restore irrigation water delivery to LN Canal shareholders. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of U.S. Highway 89). From this point of diversion (POD), the existing LN Canal route generally follows Canyon Road before turning north at about 600 East in Logan. The canal runs northerly through Logan, North Logan, Hyde Park, Smithfield, and unincorporated areas under the jurisdiction of Cache County and terminates north of Smithfield. After the landslide, a temporary water delivery system was established for LN Canal shareholders, but this system is able to deliver only about 50 percent of the water shares associated with the LN Canal. The study area is roughly bounded by 3100 North on the north (near Hyde Park), the Logan River on the south (in Logan), about 600 East on the west (in Logan and North Logan), and about 2000 East on the east (in Logan and North Logan). A narrow corridor also extends into Logan Canyon along the Logan River to about Second Dam. Three action alternatives (Purple Alternative, Orange Alternative, and Blue Alternative) and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the Purple Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, the POD for the LN Canal water would be moved upstream to the Logan Hyde Park Smithfield (LHPS) Canal POD structure below Second Dam. The LHPS Canal POD would be reconstructed as a box culvert between the POD and about Lundstrom Park/1500 North in Logan to accommodate an increase in the amount of water that could be diverted. LN Canal shares would be diverted from the box culvert into a pipeline that travels under city streets and discharges to the existing LN Canal at about 1500 North. The box culvert would end at Lundstrom Park/1500 North, and LHPS Canal shares would continue to flow in the existing LHPS Canal to its shareholders downstream. At the new 1500 North discharge point on the LN Canal, some water would be delivered to upstream users in a pressure pipe installed in the existing canal maintenance road. The remaining water would be discharged into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream users. For LN Canal shareholders between the POD and the Laub Diversion, a six-inch-diameter pipeline would be constructed in the existing canal. The Purple Alternative would include removing structures from 14 properties along Canyon Road in Logan at the toe of the historically unstable part of the Logan Bluff. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is between $20.4 million and $22.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would restore the safe delivery of water that was conveyed by the LN Canal before the 2009 landslide, and address the remaining hazards associated with the landslide zone between about 750 East and 1100 East. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would require removing riparian vegetation on the Logan River and upland and landscaped vegetation along the canal alignments. Modifications to the LHPS Canal POD could temporarily affect aquatic habitat in the Logan River. Implementation would require about 151 construction easements on public land, private residential/agricultural land, and private nonagricultural land. Canal structures would be constructed on or would cross National Forest System land, Logan Golf & Country Club, Ray Hugie Park, Lundstrom Park, and Bonneville Shoreline Trail. Temporary effects to four block groups of low-income populations and three blocks of minority populations would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110081, 740 pages, March 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Water KW - Canals KW - Cost Assessments KW - Diversion Structures KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Irrigation KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Logan River KW - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest KW - Utah KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126670?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 24 of 26] T2 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 873126669; 14837-1_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) system in Cache County, Utah is proposed. In July 2009, a landslide occurred along a hillside in the city of Logan and a section of the LN Canal, a locally managed irrigation canal, broke away causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of a section of the canal. This closure affects other parts of the local irrigation water delivery system, with the result that the canal is not delivering all water allocated to local water shareholders. Cache County is seeking funding assistance through the Emergency Watershed Protection Program to design and construct an irrigation system that will restore irrigation water delivery to LN Canal shareholders. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of U.S. Highway 89). From this point of diversion (POD), the existing LN Canal route generally follows Canyon Road before turning north at about 600 East in Logan. The canal runs northerly through Logan, North Logan, Hyde Park, Smithfield, and unincorporated areas under the jurisdiction of Cache County and terminates north of Smithfield. After the landslide, a temporary water delivery system was established for LN Canal shareholders, but this system is able to deliver only about 50 percent of the water shares associated with the LN Canal. The study area is roughly bounded by 3100 North on the north (near Hyde Park), the Logan River on the south (in Logan), about 600 East on the west (in Logan and North Logan), and about 2000 East on the east (in Logan and North Logan). A narrow corridor also extends into Logan Canyon along the Logan River to about Second Dam. Three action alternatives (Purple Alternative, Orange Alternative, and Blue Alternative) and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the Purple Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, the POD for the LN Canal water would be moved upstream to the Logan Hyde Park Smithfield (LHPS) Canal POD structure below Second Dam. The LHPS Canal POD would be reconstructed as a box culvert between the POD and about Lundstrom Park/1500 North in Logan to accommodate an increase in the amount of water that could be diverted. LN Canal shares would be diverted from the box culvert into a pipeline that travels under city streets and discharges to the existing LN Canal at about 1500 North. The box culvert would end at Lundstrom Park/1500 North, and LHPS Canal shares would continue to flow in the existing LHPS Canal to its shareholders downstream. At the new 1500 North discharge point on the LN Canal, some water would be delivered to upstream users in a pressure pipe installed in the existing canal maintenance road. The remaining water would be discharged into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream users. For LN Canal shareholders between the POD and the Laub Diversion, a six-inch-diameter pipeline would be constructed in the existing canal. The Purple Alternative would include removing structures from 14 properties along Canyon Road in Logan at the toe of the historically unstable part of the Logan Bluff. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is between $20.4 million and $22.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would restore the safe delivery of water that was conveyed by the LN Canal before the 2009 landslide, and address the remaining hazards associated with the landslide zone between about 750 East and 1100 East. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would require removing riparian vegetation on the Logan River and upland and landscaped vegetation along the canal alignments. Modifications to the LHPS Canal POD could temporarily affect aquatic habitat in the Logan River. Implementation would require about 151 construction easements on public land, private residential/agricultural land, and private nonagricultural land. Canal structures would be constructed on or would cross National Forest System land, Logan Golf & Country Club, Ray Hugie Park, Lundstrom Park, and Bonneville Shoreline Trail. Temporary effects to four block groups of low-income populations and three blocks of minority populations would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110081, 740 pages, March 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 24 KW - Water KW - Canals KW - Cost Assessments KW - Diversion Structures KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Irrigation KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Logan River KW - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest KW - Utah KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126669?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 23 of 26] T2 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 873126664; 14837-1_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) system in Cache County, Utah is proposed. In July 2009, a landslide occurred along a hillside in the city of Logan and a section of the LN Canal, a locally managed irrigation canal, broke away causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of a section of the canal. This closure affects other parts of the local irrigation water delivery system, with the result that the canal is not delivering all water allocated to local water shareholders. Cache County is seeking funding assistance through the Emergency Watershed Protection Program to design and construct an irrigation system that will restore irrigation water delivery to LN Canal shareholders. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of U.S. Highway 89). From this point of diversion (POD), the existing LN Canal route generally follows Canyon Road before turning north at about 600 East in Logan. The canal runs northerly through Logan, North Logan, Hyde Park, Smithfield, and unincorporated areas under the jurisdiction of Cache County and terminates north of Smithfield. After the landslide, a temporary water delivery system was established for LN Canal shareholders, but this system is able to deliver only about 50 percent of the water shares associated with the LN Canal. The study area is roughly bounded by 3100 North on the north (near Hyde Park), the Logan River on the south (in Logan), about 600 East on the west (in Logan and North Logan), and about 2000 East on the east (in Logan and North Logan). A narrow corridor also extends into Logan Canyon along the Logan River to about Second Dam. Three action alternatives (Purple Alternative, Orange Alternative, and Blue Alternative) and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the Purple Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, the POD for the LN Canal water would be moved upstream to the Logan Hyde Park Smithfield (LHPS) Canal POD structure below Second Dam. The LHPS Canal POD would be reconstructed as a box culvert between the POD and about Lundstrom Park/1500 North in Logan to accommodate an increase in the amount of water that could be diverted. LN Canal shares would be diverted from the box culvert into a pipeline that travels under city streets and discharges to the existing LN Canal at about 1500 North. The box culvert would end at Lundstrom Park/1500 North, and LHPS Canal shares would continue to flow in the existing LHPS Canal to its shareholders downstream. At the new 1500 North discharge point on the LN Canal, some water would be delivered to upstream users in a pressure pipe installed in the existing canal maintenance road. The remaining water would be discharged into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream users. For LN Canal shareholders between the POD and the Laub Diversion, a six-inch-diameter pipeline would be constructed in the existing canal. The Purple Alternative would include removing structures from 14 properties along Canyon Road in Logan at the toe of the historically unstable part of the Logan Bluff. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is between $20.4 million and $22.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would restore the safe delivery of water that was conveyed by the LN Canal before the 2009 landslide, and address the remaining hazards associated with the landslide zone between about 750 East and 1100 East. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would require removing riparian vegetation on the Logan River and upland and landscaped vegetation along the canal alignments. Modifications to the LHPS Canal POD could temporarily affect aquatic habitat in the Logan River. Implementation would require about 151 construction easements on public land, private residential/agricultural land, and private nonagricultural land. Canal structures would be constructed on or would cross National Forest System land, Logan Golf & Country Club, Ray Hugie Park, Lundstrom Park, and Bonneville Shoreline Trail. Temporary effects to four block groups of low-income populations and three blocks of minority populations would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110081, 740 pages, March 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 23 KW - Water KW - Canals KW - Cost Assessments KW - Diversion Structures KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Irrigation KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Logan River KW - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest KW - Utah KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126664?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 8 of 26] T2 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 873126662; 14837-1_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) system in Cache County, Utah is proposed. In July 2009, a landslide occurred along a hillside in the city of Logan and a section of the LN Canal, a locally managed irrigation canal, broke away causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of a section of the canal. This closure affects other parts of the local irrigation water delivery system, with the result that the canal is not delivering all water allocated to local water shareholders. Cache County is seeking funding assistance through the Emergency Watershed Protection Program to design and construct an irrigation system that will restore irrigation water delivery to LN Canal shareholders. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of U.S. Highway 89). From this point of diversion (POD), the existing LN Canal route generally follows Canyon Road before turning north at about 600 East in Logan. The canal runs northerly through Logan, North Logan, Hyde Park, Smithfield, and unincorporated areas under the jurisdiction of Cache County and terminates north of Smithfield. After the landslide, a temporary water delivery system was established for LN Canal shareholders, but this system is able to deliver only about 50 percent of the water shares associated with the LN Canal. The study area is roughly bounded by 3100 North on the north (near Hyde Park), the Logan River on the south (in Logan), about 600 East on the west (in Logan and North Logan), and about 2000 East on the east (in Logan and North Logan). A narrow corridor also extends into Logan Canyon along the Logan River to about Second Dam. Three action alternatives (Purple Alternative, Orange Alternative, and Blue Alternative) and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the Purple Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, the POD for the LN Canal water would be moved upstream to the Logan Hyde Park Smithfield (LHPS) Canal POD structure below Second Dam. The LHPS Canal POD would be reconstructed as a box culvert between the POD and about Lundstrom Park/1500 North in Logan to accommodate an increase in the amount of water that could be diverted. LN Canal shares would be diverted from the box culvert into a pipeline that travels under city streets and discharges to the existing LN Canal at about 1500 North. The box culvert would end at Lundstrom Park/1500 North, and LHPS Canal shares would continue to flow in the existing LHPS Canal to its shareholders downstream. At the new 1500 North discharge point on the LN Canal, some water would be delivered to upstream users in a pressure pipe installed in the existing canal maintenance road. The remaining water would be discharged into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream users. For LN Canal shareholders between the POD and the Laub Diversion, a six-inch-diameter pipeline would be constructed in the existing canal. The Purple Alternative would include removing structures from 14 properties along Canyon Road in Logan at the toe of the historically unstable part of the Logan Bluff. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is between $20.4 million and $22.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would restore the safe delivery of water that was conveyed by the LN Canal before the 2009 landslide, and address the remaining hazards associated with the landslide zone between about 750 East and 1100 East. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would require removing riparian vegetation on the Logan River and upland and landscaped vegetation along the canal alignments. Modifications to the LHPS Canal POD could temporarily affect aquatic habitat in the Logan River. Implementation would require about 151 construction easements on public land, private residential/agricultural land, and private nonagricultural land. Canal structures would be constructed on or would cross National Forest System land, Logan Golf & Country Club, Ray Hugie Park, Lundstrom Park, and Bonneville Shoreline Trail. Temporary effects to four block groups of low-income populations and three blocks of minority populations would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110081, 740 pages, March 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Water KW - Canals KW - Cost Assessments KW - Diversion Structures KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Irrigation KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Logan River KW - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest KW - Utah KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126662?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 7 of 26] T2 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 873126659; 14837-1_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) system in Cache County, Utah is proposed. In July 2009, a landslide occurred along a hillside in the city of Logan and a section of the LN Canal, a locally managed irrigation canal, broke away causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of a section of the canal. This closure affects other parts of the local irrigation water delivery system, with the result that the canal is not delivering all water allocated to local water shareholders. Cache County is seeking funding assistance through the Emergency Watershed Protection Program to design and construct an irrigation system that will restore irrigation water delivery to LN Canal shareholders. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of U.S. Highway 89). From this point of diversion (POD), the existing LN Canal route generally follows Canyon Road before turning north at about 600 East in Logan. The canal runs northerly through Logan, North Logan, Hyde Park, Smithfield, and unincorporated areas under the jurisdiction of Cache County and terminates north of Smithfield. After the landslide, a temporary water delivery system was established for LN Canal shareholders, but this system is able to deliver only about 50 percent of the water shares associated with the LN Canal. The study area is roughly bounded by 3100 North on the north (near Hyde Park), the Logan River on the south (in Logan), about 600 East on the west (in Logan and North Logan), and about 2000 East on the east (in Logan and North Logan). A narrow corridor also extends into Logan Canyon along the Logan River to about Second Dam. Three action alternatives (Purple Alternative, Orange Alternative, and Blue Alternative) and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the Purple Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, the POD for the LN Canal water would be moved upstream to the Logan Hyde Park Smithfield (LHPS) Canal POD structure below Second Dam. The LHPS Canal POD would be reconstructed as a box culvert between the POD and about Lundstrom Park/1500 North in Logan to accommodate an increase in the amount of water that could be diverted. LN Canal shares would be diverted from the box culvert into a pipeline that travels under city streets and discharges to the existing LN Canal at about 1500 North. The box culvert would end at Lundstrom Park/1500 North, and LHPS Canal shares would continue to flow in the existing LHPS Canal to its shareholders downstream. At the new 1500 North discharge point on the LN Canal, some water would be delivered to upstream users in a pressure pipe installed in the existing canal maintenance road. The remaining water would be discharged into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream users. For LN Canal shareholders between the POD and the Laub Diversion, a six-inch-diameter pipeline would be constructed in the existing canal. The Purple Alternative would include removing structures from 14 properties along Canyon Road in Logan at the toe of the historically unstable part of the Logan Bluff. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is between $20.4 million and $22.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would restore the safe delivery of water that was conveyed by the LN Canal before the 2009 landslide, and address the remaining hazards associated with the landslide zone between about 750 East and 1100 East. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would require removing riparian vegetation on the Logan River and upland and landscaped vegetation along the canal alignments. Modifications to the LHPS Canal POD could temporarily affect aquatic habitat in the Logan River. Implementation would require about 151 construction easements on public land, private residential/agricultural land, and private nonagricultural land. Canal structures would be constructed on or would cross National Forest System land, Logan Golf & Country Club, Ray Hugie Park, Lundstrom Park, and Bonneville Shoreline Trail. Temporary effects to four block groups of low-income populations and three blocks of minority populations would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110081, 740 pages, March 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Water KW - Canals KW - Cost Assessments KW - Diversion Structures KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Irrigation KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Logan River KW - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest KW - Utah KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126659?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 17 of 26] T2 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 873126290; 14837-1_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) system in Cache County, Utah is proposed. In July 2009, a landslide occurred along a hillside in the city of Logan and a section of the LN Canal, a locally managed irrigation canal, broke away causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of a section of the canal. This closure affects other parts of the local irrigation water delivery system, with the result that the canal is not delivering all water allocated to local water shareholders. Cache County is seeking funding assistance through the Emergency Watershed Protection Program to design and construct an irrigation system that will restore irrigation water delivery to LN Canal shareholders. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of U.S. Highway 89). From this point of diversion (POD), the existing LN Canal route generally follows Canyon Road before turning north at about 600 East in Logan. The canal runs northerly through Logan, North Logan, Hyde Park, Smithfield, and unincorporated areas under the jurisdiction of Cache County and terminates north of Smithfield. After the landslide, a temporary water delivery system was established for LN Canal shareholders, but this system is able to deliver only about 50 percent of the water shares associated with the LN Canal. The study area is roughly bounded by 3100 North on the north (near Hyde Park), the Logan River on the south (in Logan), about 600 East on the west (in Logan and North Logan), and about 2000 East on the east (in Logan and North Logan). A narrow corridor also extends into Logan Canyon along the Logan River to about Second Dam. Three action alternatives (Purple Alternative, Orange Alternative, and Blue Alternative) and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the Purple Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, the POD for the LN Canal water would be moved upstream to the Logan Hyde Park Smithfield (LHPS) Canal POD structure below Second Dam. The LHPS Canal POD would be reconstructed as a box culvert between the POD and about Lundstrom Park/1500 North in Logan to accommodate an increase in the amount of water that could be diverted. LN Canal shares would be diverted from the box culvert into a pipeline that travels under city streets and discharges to the existing LN Canal at about 1500 North. The box culvert would end at Lundstrom Park/1500 North, and LHPS Canal shares would continue to flow in the existing LHPS Canal to its shareholders downstream. At the new 1500 North discharge point on the LN Canal, some water would be delivered to upstream users in a pressure pipe installed in the existing canal maintenance road. The remaining water would be discharged into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream users. For LN Canal shareholders between the POD and the Laub Diversion, a six-inch-diameter pipeline would be constructed in the existing canal. The Purple Alternative would include removing structures from 14 properties along Canyon Road in Logan at the toe of the historically unstable part of the Logan Bluff. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is between $20.4 million and $22.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would restore the safe delivery of water that was conveyed by the LN Canal before the 2009 landslide, and address the remaining hazards associated with the landslide zone between about 750 East and 1100 East. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would require removing riparian vegetation on the Logan River and upland and landscaped vegetation along the canal alignments. Modifications to the LHPS Canal POD could temporarily affect aquatic habitat in the Logan River. Implementation would require about 151 construction easements on public land, private residential/agricultural land, and private nonagricultural land. Canal structures would be constructed on or would cross National Forest System land, Logan Golf & Country Club, Ray Hugie Park, Lundstrom Park, and Bonneville Shoreline Trail. Temporary effects to four block groups of low-income populations and three blocks of minority populations would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110081, 740 pages, March 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 17 KW - Water KW - Canals KW - Cost Assessments KW - Diversion Structures KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Irrigation KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Logan River KW - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest KW - Utah KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126290?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 15 of 26] T2 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 873126258; 14837-1_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) system in Cache County, Utah is proposed. In July 2009, a landslide occurred along a hillside in the city of Logan and a section of the LN Canal, a locally managed irrigation canal, broke away causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of a section of the canal. This closure affects other parts of the local irrigation water delivery system, with the result that the canal is not delivering all water allocated to local water shareholders. Cache County is seeking funding assistance through the Emergency Watershed Protection Program to design and construct an irrigation system that will restore irrigation water delivery to LN Canal shareholders. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of U.S. Highway 89). From this point of diversion (POD), the existing LN Canal route generally follows Canyon Road before turning north at about 600 East in Logan. The canal runs northerly through Logan, North Logan, Hyde Park, Smithfield, and unincorporated areas under the jurisdiction of Cache County and terminates north of Smithfield. After the landslide, a temporary water delivery system was established for LN Canal shareholders, but this system is able to deliver only about 50 percent of the water shares associated with the LN Canal. The study area is roughly bounded by 3100 North on the north (near Hyde Park), the Logan River on the south (in Logan), about 600 East on the west (in Logan and North Logan), and about 2000 East on the east (in Logan and North Logan). A narrow corridor also extends into Logan Canyon along the Logan River to about Second Dam. Three action alternatives (Purple Alternative, Orange Alternative, and Blue Alternative) and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the Purple Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, the POD for the LN Canal water would be moved upstream to the Logan Hyde Park Smithfield (LHPS) Canal POD structure below Second Dam. The LHPS Canal POD would be reconstructed as a box culvert between the POD and about Lundstrom Park/1500 North in Logan to accommodate an increase in the amount of water that could be diverted. LN Canal shares would be diverted from the box culvert into a pipeline that travels under city streets and discharges to the existing LN Canal at about 1500 North. The box culvert would end at Lundstrom Park/1500 North, and LHPS Canal shares would continue to flow in the existing LHPS Canal to its shareholders downstream. At the new 1500 North discharge point on the LN Canal, some water would be delivered to upstream users in a pressure pipe installed in the existing canal maintenance road. The remaining water would be discharged into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream users. For LN Canal shareholders between the POD and the Laub Diversion, a six-inch-diameter pipeline would be constructed in the existing canal. The Purple Alternative would include removing structures from 14 properties along Canyon Road in Logan at the toe of the historically unstable part of the Logan Bluff. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is between $20.4 million and $22.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would restore the safe delivery of water that was conveyed by the LN Canal before the 2009 landslide, and address the remaining hazards associated with the landslide zone between about 750 East and 1100 East. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would require removing riparian vegetation on the Logan River and upland and landscaped vegetation along the canal alignments. Modifications to the LHPS Canal POD could temporarily affect aquatic habitat in the Logan River. Implementation would require about 151 construction easements on public land, private residential/agricultural land, and private nonagricultural land. Canal structures would be constructed on or would cross National Forest System land, Logan Golf & Country Club, Ray Hugie Park, Lundstrom Park, and Bonneville Shoreline Trail. Temporary effects to four block groups of low-income populations and three blocks of minority populations would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110081, 740 pages, March 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Water KW - Canals KW - Cost Assessments KW - Diversion Structures KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Irrigation KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Logan River KW - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest KW - Utah KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126258?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 14 of 26] T2 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 873126249; 14837-1_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) system in Cache County, Utah is proposed. In July 2009, a landslide occurred along a hillside in the city of Logan and a section of the LN Canal, a locally managed irrigation canal, broke away causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of a section of the canal. This closure affects other parts of the local irrigation water delivery system, with the result that the canal is not delivering all water allocated to local water shareholders. Cache County is seeking funding assistance through the Emergency Watershed Protection Program to design and construct an irrigation system that will restore irrigation water delivery to LN Canal shareholders. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of U.S. Highway 89). From this point of diversion (POD), the existing LN Canal route generally follows Canyon Road before turning north at about 600 East in Logan. The canal runs northerly through Logan, North Logan, Hyde Park, Smithfield, and unincorporated areas under the jurisdiction of Cache County and terminates north of Smithfield. After the landslide, a temporary water delivery system was established for LN Canal shareholders, but this system is able to deliver only about 50 percent of the water shares associated with the LN Canal. The study area is roughly bounded by 3100 North on the north (near Hyde Park), the Logan River on the south (in Logan), about 600 East on the west (in Logan and North Logan), and about 2000 East on the east (in Logan and North Logan). A narrow corridor also extends into Logan Canyon along the Logan River to about Second Dam. Three action alternatives (Purple Alternative, Orange Alternative, and Blue Alternative) and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the Purple Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, the POD for the LN Canal water would be moved upstream to the Logan Hyde Park Smithfield (LHPS) Canal POD structure below Second Dam. The LHPS Canal POD would be reconstructed as a box culvert between the POD and about Lundstrom Park/1500 North in Logan to accommodate an increase in the amount of water that could be diverted. LN Canal shares would be diverted from the box culvert into a pipeline that travels under city streets and discharges to the existing LN Canal at about 1500 North. The box culvert would end at Lundstrom Park/1500 North, and LHPS Canal shares would continue to flow in the existing LHPS Canal to its shareholders downstream. At the new 1500 North discharge point on the LN Canal, some water would be delivered to upstream users in a pressure pipe installed in the existing canal maintenance road. The remaining water would be discharged into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream users. For LN Canal shareholders between the POD and the Laub Diversion, a six-inch-diameter pipeline would be constructed in the existing canal. The Purple Alternative would include removing structures from 14 properties along Canyon Road in Logan at the toe of the historically unstable part of the Logan Bluff. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is between $20.4 million and $22.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would restore the safe delivery of water that was conveyed by the LN Canal before the 2009 landslide, and address the remaining hazards associated with the landslide zone between about 750 East and 1100 East. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would require removing riparian vegetation on the Logan River and upland and landscaped vegetation along the canal alignments. Modifications to the LHPS Canal POD could temporarily affect aquatic habitat in the Logan River. Implementation would require about 151 construction easements on public land, private residential/agricultural land, and private nonagricultural land. Canal structures would be constructed on or would cross National Forest System land, Logan Golf & Country Club, Ray Hugie Park, Lundstrom Park, and Bonneville Shoreline Trail. Temporary effects to four block groups of low-income populations and three blocks of minority populations would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110081, 740 pages, March 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Water KW - Canals KW - Cost Assessments KW - Diversion Structures KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Irrigation KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Logan River KW - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest KW - Utah KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126249?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 13 of 26] T2 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 873126240; 14837-1_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) system in Cache County, Utah is proposed. In July 2009, a landslide occurred along a hillside in the city of Logan and a section of the LN Canal, a locally managed irrigation canal, broke away causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of a section of the canal. This closure affects other parts of the local irrigation water delivery system, with the result that the canal is not delivering all water allocated to local water shareholders. Cache County is seeking funding assistance through the Emergency Watershed Protection Program to design and construct an irrigation system that will restore irrigation water delivery to LN Canal shareholders. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of U.S. Highway 89). From this point of diversion (POD), the existing LN Canal route generally follows Canyon Road before turning north at about 600 East in Logan. The canal runs northerly through Logan, North Logan, Hyde Park, Smithfield, and unincorporated areas under the jurisdiction of Cache County and terminates north of Smithfield. After the landslide, a temporary water delivery system was established for LN Canal shareholders, but this system is able to deliver only about 50 percent of the water shares associated with the LN Canal. The study area is roughly bounded by 3100 North on the north (near Hyde Park), the Logan River on the south (in Logan), about 600 East on the west (in Logan and North Logan), and about 2000 East on the east (in Logan and North Logan). A narrow corridor also extends into Logan Canyon along the Logan River to about Second Dam. Three action alternatives (Purple Alternative, Orange Alternative, and Blue Alternative) and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the Purple Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, the POD for the LN Canal water would be moved upstream to the Logan Hyde Park Smithfield (LHPS) Canal POD structure below Second Dam. The LHPS Canal POD would be reconstructed as a box culvert between the POD and about Lundstrom Park/1500 North in Logan to accommodate an increase in the amount of water that could be diverted. LN Canal shares would be diverted from the box culvert into a pipeline that travels under city streets and discharges to the existing LN Canal at about 1500 North. The box culvert would end at Lundstrom Park/1500 North, and LHPS Canal shares would continue to flow in the existing LHPS Canal to its shareholders downstream. At the new 1500 North discharge point on the LN Canal, some water would be delivered to upstream users in a pressure pipe installed in the existing canal maintenance road. The remaining water would be discharged into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream users. For LN Canal shareholders between the POD and the Laub Diversion, a six-inch-diameter pipeline would be constructed in the existing canal. The Purple Alternative would include removing structures from 14 properties along Canyon Road in Logan at the toe of the historically unstable part of the Logan Bluff. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is between $20.4 million and $22.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would restore the safe delivery of water that was conveyed by the LN Canal before the 2009 landslide, and address the remaining hazards associated with the landslide zone between about 750 East and 1100 East. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would require removing riparian vegetation on the Logan River and upland and landscaped vegetation along the canal alignments. Modifications to the LHPS Canal POD could temporarily affect aquatic habitat in the Logan River. Implementation would require about 151 construction easements on public land, private residential/agricultural land, and private nonagricultural land. Canal structures would be constructed on or would cross National Forest System land, Logan Golf & Country Club, Ray Hugie Park, Lundstrom Park, and Bonneville Shoreline Trail. Temporary effects to four block groups of low-income populations and three blocks of minority populations would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110081, 740 pages, March 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Water KW - Canals KW - Cost Assessments KW - Diversion Structures KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Irrigation KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Logan River KW - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest KW - Utah KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126240?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 12 of 26] T2 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 873126231; 14837-1_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) system in Cache County, Utah is proposed. In July 2009, a landslide occurred along a hillside in the city of Logan and a section of the LN Canal, a locally managed irrigation canal, broke away causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of a section of the canal. This closure affects other parts of the local irrigation water delivery system, with the result that the canal is not delivering all water allocated to local water shareholders. Cache County is seeking funding assistance through the Emergency Watershed Protection Program to design and construct an irrigation system that will restore irrigation water delivery to LN Canal shareholders. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of U.S. Highway 89). From this point of diversion (POD), the existing LN Canal route generally follows Canyon Road before turning north at about 600 East in Logan. The canal runs northerly through Logan, North Logan, Hyde Park, Smithfield, and unincorporated areas under the jurisdiction of Cache County and terminates north of Smithfield. After the landslide, a temporary water delivery system was established for LN Canal shareholders, but this system is able to deliver only about 50 percent of the water shares associated with the LN Canal. The study area is roughly bounded by 3100 North on the north (near Hyde Park), the Logan River on the south (in Logan), about 600 East on the west (in Logan and North Logan), and about 2000 East on the east (in Logan and North Logan). A narrow corridor also extends into Logan Canyon along the Logan River to about Second Dam. Three action alternatives (Purple Alternative, Orange Alternative, and Blue Alternative) and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the Purple Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, the POD for the LN Canal water would be moved upstream to the Logan Hyde Park Smithfield (LHPS) Canal POD structure below Second Dam. The LHPS Canal POD would be reconstructed as a box culvert between the POD and about Lundstrom Park/1500 North in Logan to accommodate an increase in the amount of water that could be diverted. LN Canal shares would be diverted from the box culvert into a pipeline that travels under city streets and discharges to the existing LN Canal at about 1500 North. The box culvert would end at Lundstrom Park/1500 North, and LHPS Canal shares would continue to flow in the existing LHPS Canal to its shareholders downstream. At the new 1500 North discharge point on the LN Canal, some water would be delivered to upstream users in a pressure pipe installed in the existing canal maintenance road. The remaining water would be discharged into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream users. For LN Canal shareholders between the POD and the Laub Diversion, a six-inch-diameter pipeline would be constructed in the existing canal. The Purple Alternative would include removing structures from 14 properties along Canyon Road in Logan at the toe of the historically unstable part of the Logan Bluff. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is between $20.4 million and $22.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would restore the safe delivery of water that was conveyed by the LN Canal before the 2009 landslide, and address the remaining hazards associated with the landslide zone between about 750 East and 1100 East. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would require removing riparian vegetation on the Logan River and upland and landscaped vegetation along the canal alignments. Modifications to the LHPS Canal POD could temporarily affect aquatic habitat in the Logan River. Implementation would require about 151 construction easements on public land, private residential/agricultural land, and private nonagricultural land. Canal structures would be constructed on or would cross National Forest System land, Logan Golf & Country Club, Ray Hugie Park, Lundstrom Park, and Bonneville Shoreline Trail. Temporary effects to four block groups of low-income populations and three blocks of minority populations would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110081, 740 pages, March 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Water KW - Canals KW - Cost Assessments KW - Diversion Structures KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Irrigation KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Logan River KW - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest KW - Utah KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126231?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 2 of 26] T2 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 873125981; 14837-1_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) system in Cache County, Utah is proposed. In July 2009, a landslide occurred along a hillside in the city of Logan and a section of the LN Canal, a locally managed irrigation canal, broke away causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of a section of the canal. This closure affects other parts of the local irrigation water delivery system, with the result that the canal is not delivering all water allocated to local water shareholders. Cache County is seeking funding assistance through the Emergency Watershed Protection Program to design and construct an irrigation system that will restore irrigation water delivery to LN Canal shareholders. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of U.S. Highway 89). From this point of diversion (POD), the existing LN Canal route generally follows Canyon Road before turning north at about 600 East in Logan. The canal runs northerly through Logan, North Logan, Hyde Park, Smithfield, and unincorporated areas under the jurisdiction of Cache County and terminates north of Smithfield. After the landslide, a temporary water delivery system was established for LN Canal shareholders, but this system is able to deliver only about 50 percent of the water shares associated with the LN Canal. The study area is roughly bounded by 3100 North on the north (near Hyde Park), the Logan River on the south (in Logan), about 600 East on the west (in Logan and North Logan), and about 2000 East on the east (in Logan and North Logan). A narrow corridor also extends into Logan Canyon along the Logan River to about Second Dam. Three action alternatives (Purple Alternative, Orange Alternative, and Blue Alternative) and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the Purple Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, the POD for the LN Canal water would be moved upstream to the Logan Hyde Park Smithfield (LHPS) Canal POD structure below Second Dam. The LHPS Canal POD would be reconstructed as a box culvert between the POD and about Lundstrom Park/1500 North in Logan to accommodate an increase in the amount of water that could be diverted. LN Canal shares would be diverted from the box culvert into a pipeline that travels under city streets and discharges to the existing LN Canal at about 1500 North. The box culvert would end at Lundstrom Park/1500 North, and LHPS Canal shares would continue to flow in the existing LHPS Canal to its shareholders downstream. At the new 1500 North discharge point on the LN Canal, some water would be delivered to upstream users in a pressure pipe installed in the existing canal maintenance road. The remaining water would be discharged into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream users. For LN Canal shareholders between the POD and the Laub Diversion, a six-inch-diameter pipeline would be constructed in the existing canal. The Purple Alternative would include removing structures from 14 properties along Canyon Road in Logan at the toe of the historically unstable part of the Logan Bluff. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is between $20.4 million and $22.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would restore the safe delivery of water that was conveyed by the LN Canal before the 2009 landslide, and address the remaining hazards associated with the landslide zone between about 750 East and 1100 East. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would require removing riparian vegetation on the Logan River and upland and landscaped vegetation along the canal alignments. Modifications to the LHPS Canal POD could temporarily affect aquatic habitat in the Logan River. Implementation would require about 151 construction easements on public land, private residential/agricultural land, and private nonagricultural land. Canal structures would be constructed on or would cross National Forest System land, Logan Golf & Country Club, Ray Hugie Park, Lundstrom Park, and Bonneville Shoreline Trail. Temporary effects to four block groups of low-income populations and three blocks of minority populations would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110081, 740 pages, March 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Canals KW - Cost Assessments KW - Diversion Structures KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Irrigation KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Logan River KW - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest KW - Utah KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125981?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 1 of 26] T2 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 873125978; 14837-1_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) system in Cache County, Utah is proposed. In July 2009, a landslide occurred along a hillside in the city of Logan and a section of the LN Canal, a locally managed irrigation canal, broke away causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of a section of the canal. This closure affects other parts of the local irrigation water delivery system, with the result that the canal is not delivering all water allocated to local water shareholders. Cache County is seeking funding assistance through the Emergency Watershed Protection Program to design and construct an irrigation system that will restore irrigation water delivery to LN Canal shareholders. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of U.S. Highway 89). From this point of diversion (POD), the existing LN Canal route generally follows Canyon Road before turning north at about 600 East in Logan. The canal runs northerly through Logan, North Logan, Hyde Park, Smithfield, and unincorporated areas under the jurisdiction of Cache County and terminates north of Smithfield. After the landslide, a temporary water delivery system was established for LN Canal shareholders, but this system is able to deliver only about 50 percent of the water shares associated with the LN Canal. The study area is roughly bounded by 3100 North on the north (near Hyde Park), the Logan River on the south (in Logan), about 600 East on the west (in Logan and North Logan), and about 2000 East on the east (in Logan and North Logan). A narrow corridor also extends into Logan Canyon along the Logan River to about Second Dam. Three action alternatives (Purple Alternative, Orange Alternative, and Blue Alternative) and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the Purple Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, the POD for the LN Canal water would be moved upstream to the Logan Hyde Park Smithfield (LHPS) Canal POD structure below Second Dam. The LHPS Canal POD would be reconstructed as a box culvert between the POD and about Lundstrom Park/1500 North in Logan to accommodate an increase in the amount of water that could be diverted. LN Canal shares would be diverted from the box culvert into a pipeline that travels under city streets and discharges to the existing LN Canal at about 1500 North. The box culvert would end at Lundstrom Park/1500 North, and LHPS Canal shares would continue to flow in the existing LHPS Canal to its shareholders downstream. At the new 1500 North discharge point on the LN Canal, some water would be delivered to upstream users in a pressure pipe installed in the existing canal maintenance road. The remaining water would be discharged into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream users. For LN Canal shareholders between the POD and the Laub Diversion, a six-inch-diameter pipeline would be constructed in the existing canal. The Purple Alternative would include removing structures from 14 properties along Canyon Road in Logan at the toe of the historically unstable part of the Logan Bluff. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is between $20.4 million and $22.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would restore the safe delivery of water that was conveyed by the LN Canal before the 2009 landslide, and address the remaining hazards associated with the landslide zone between about 750 East and 1100 East. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would require removing riparian vegetation on the Logan River and upland and landscaped vegetation along the canal alignments. Modifications to the LHPS Canal POD could temporarily affect aquatic habitat in the Logan River. Implementation would require about 151 construction easements on public land, private residential/agricultural land, and private nonagricultural land. Canal structures would be constructed on or would cross National Forest System land, Logan Golf & Country Club, Ray Hugie Park, Lundstrom Park, and Bonneville Shoreline Trail. Temporary effects to four block groups of low-income populations and three blocks of minority populations would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110081, 740 pages, March 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Canals KW - Cost Assessments KW - Diversion Structures KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Irrigation KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Logan River KW - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest KW - Utah KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125978?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOGAN NORTHERN CANAL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY OF LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 863888954; 14837 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Logan Northern Canal (LN Canal) system in Cache County, Utah is proposed. In July 2009, a landslide occurred along a hillside in the city of Logan and a section of the LN Canal, a locally managed irrigation canal, broke away causing a breach which required the indefinite closure of a section of the canal. This closure affects other parts of the local irrigation water delivery system, with the result that the canal is not delivering all water allocated to local water shareholders. Cache County is seeking funding assistance through the Emergency Watershed Protection Program to design and construct an irrigation system that will restore irrigation water delivery to LN Canal shareholders. Before the 2009 landslide, water was diverted from the Logan River below First Dam along Canyon Road at about 1700 East (south of U.S. Highway 89). From this point of diversion (POD), the existing LN Canal route generally follows Canyon Road before turning north at about 600 East in Logan. The canal runs northerly through Logan, North Logan, Hyde Park, Smithfield, and unincorporated areas under the jurisdiction of Cache County and terminates north of Smithfield. After the landslide, a temporary water delivery system was established for LN Canal shareholders, but this system is able to deliver only about 50 percent of the water shares associated with the LN Canal. The study area is roughly bounded by 3100 North on the north (near Hyde Park), the Logan River on the south (in Logan), about 600 East on the west (in Logan and North Logan), and about 2000 East on the east (in Logan and North Logan). A narrow corridor also extends into Logan Canyon along the Logan River to about Second Dam. Three action alternatives (Purple Alternative, Orange Alternative, and Blue Alternative) and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the Purple Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, the POD for the LN Canal water would be moved upstream to the Logan Hyde Park Smithfield (LHPS) Canal POD structure below Second Dam. The LHPS Canal POD would be reconstructed as a box culvert between the POD and about Lundstrom Park/1500 North in Logan to accommodate an increase in the amount of water that could be diverted. LN Canal shares would be diverted from the box culvert into a pipeline that travels under city streets and discharges to the existing LN Canal at about 1500 North. The box culvert would end at Lundstrom Park/1500 North, and LHPS Canal shares would continue to flow in the existing LHPS Canal to its shareholders downstream. At the new 1500 North discharge point on the LN Canal, some water would be delivered to upstream users in a pressure pipe installed in the existing canal maintenance road. The remaining water would be discharged into the existing LN Canal for delivery to downstream users. For LN Canal shareholders between the POD and the Laub Diversion, a six-inch-diameter pipeline would be constructed in the existing canal. The Purple Alternative would include removing structures from 14 properties along Canyon Road in Logan at the toe of the historically unstable part of the Logan Bluff. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is between $20.4 million and $22.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would restore the safe delivery of water that was conveyed by the LN Canal before the 2009 landslide, and address the remaining hazards associated with the landslide zone between about 750 East and 1100 East. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would require removing riparian vegetation on the Logan River and upland and landscaped vegetation along the canal alignments. Modifications to the LHPS Canal POD could temporarily affect aquatic habitat in the Logan River. Implementation would require about 151 construction easements on public land, private residential/agricultural land, and private nonagricultural land. Canal structures would be constructed on or would cross National Forest System land, Logan Golf & Country Club, Ray Hugie Park, Lundstrom Park, and Bonneville Shoreline Trail. Temporary effects to four block groups of low-income populations and three blocks of minority populations would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110081, 740 pages, March 18, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Water KW - Canals KW - Cost Assessments KW - Diversion Structures KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Irrigation KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Logan River KW - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest KW - Utah KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/863888954?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=LOGAN+NORTHERN+CANAL+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+LOGAN%2C+CACHE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HONOLULU SEAWATER AIR CONDITIONING PROJECT, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, HAWAII. AN - 863888950; 14834 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a seawater air conditioning system (SWAC) at Kakaako on the leeward shore of the island of Oahu, Hawaii is proposed. Honolulu Seawater Air Conditioning, LLC proposes to construct a SWAC to provide 25,000 tons of centralized air conditioning for downtown Honolulu. The system would consist of: 1) a 63-inch diameter seawater intake pipe extending four to five miles offshore from Kakaako to a depth of 1,600 to 1,800 feet; 2) a 54-inch seawater return pipe extending 3,500 feet offshore from Kakaako to a depth of 150 feet; 3) a pump station containing pumps, heat exchangers and auxiliary chillers in the Makai District of the Kakaako Community Development District; and 4) a network of chilled water distribution pipes from the pump station to customer buildings in the downtown area. An 18-acre staging area for pipe assembly is proposed for an area along the western shore of Sand Island and in the adjoining channel in Keehi Lagoon. The proposed seawater intake and return pipes would obtain deep, cold seawater from the ocean to chill fresh water that would circulate through the SWAC system and return the seawater to the ocean after it has passed through onshore SWAC heat exchangers. The discrete segments of the intake and return seawater pipelines would extend from: the cooling station to the offshore breakout point; from the breakout point to the return seawater diffuser; and from the diffuser to the intake. The applicant proposes to use microtunneling (remote control pipe jacking) for the segment extending from the cooling station to the offshore breakout point. Two jacked pipelines would be installed. This draft EIS considers two action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Differences between the action alternatives include: location of the cooling station, the microtunnel route from the cooling station to the breakout point, location of the breakout point, and the pipe route seaward of the breakout point. Alternative 1, which is the applicants preferred alternative, would include a microtunneled shaft from a jacking pit located adjacent to Kakaako Waterfront Park to an offshore receiving pit from which to recover the microtunnel boring machine. The breakout point for the seawater intake and discharge shafts would be in the biotope of dredged rubble at a depth of 31 feet. This point is approximately 1,800 feet offshore, and is the closest point to shore where the biotope of scattered corals can be avoided. Exposed portions of the pipes from the breakout point to the intake would be held on the bottom with concrete collars. At depths down to 150 feet, for additional stability, steel pipe piles would be driven through sleeves in the collars using a percussion hammer. Under Alternative 2, the cooling station would be located on Pier 1 of Honolulu Harbor, slightly west of the Alternative 1 location. The microtunneled shaft from the cooling station would emerge to the east of the breakout point for Alternative 1, near the Kewalo Basin entrance channel. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed SWAC would allow the use of renewable, deep cold seawater instead of electricity-intensive refrigeration systems to air condition one or more buildings in downtown Honolulu. Implementation would save more than 77.5 million kilowatt-hours per year of electricity and up to 260 million gallons of potable water, as well as eliminate of up to 84 million gallons of sewage annually. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Excavations of the streets of downtown Honolulu could uncover burial remains or other culturally significant items and installation of distribution pipes would create traffic hazards. Offshore construction operations would create noise from both vessels and equipment, and vibration from pile driving. Vessel traffic within the Keehi Lagoon staging area for the pipelines would be restricted for a period of 10 months, although access to the residences on the island there would not be impeded. Operation would impact water quality and marine biota within a defined zone of mixing. The seawater return flows would be lower in temperature and dissolved oxygen concentrations and higher in dissolved inorganic nutrient concentrations. Under worst case conditions, ambient water quality standards would be met within about 150 feet of the diffuser. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110078, 572 pages, March 18, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Water KW - Barges KW - Central Business Districts KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cooling Systems KW - Corals KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Islands KW - Lagoons KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Water Quality KW - Hawaii 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/863888950?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HONOLULU+SEAWATER+AIR+CONDITIONING+PROJECT%2C+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+HONOLULU%2C+HAWAII.&rft.title=HONOLULU+SEAWATER+AIR+CONDITIONING+PROJECT%2C+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+HONOLULU%2C+HAWAII.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Fort Shafter, Hawaii; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRIDENT SUPPORT FACILITIES EXPLOSIVES HANDLING WHARF (EHW-2), NAVAL BASE KITSAP BANGOR, SILVERDALE, KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 16373410; 14836 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, located on the Hood Canal approximately 20 miles west of Seattle, 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 existing EHW alone will not be able to support TRIDENT program requirements. The EHW-2 would be adjacent to but separate from the existing EHW and would consist of two components: the wharf proper (or operations area), including the warping wharf; and access trestle(s). The wharf proper would be either pile-supported or floating. Two types of pile-supported wharf are being considered: a conventional pile-supported wharf and a large-pile wharf. The access trestles would be pile-supported and would be either completely separate or combined for part of their spans. The trestles under either option would come ashore at the same location and tie into existing roads. All piles would be hollow steel pipe piles. Five action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this draft EIS. The action alternatives consist of combinations of two access trestle layouts (separate and combined) and three wharf configurations (conventional pile-supported, large pile, and floating). 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 preferred alternative is the Combined Trestle, Large Pile Wharf Alternative (Alternative 1). 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 TRIDENT program requirements for the eight submarines currently homeported at NBK Bangor and for the TRIDENT II strategic weapons system. Construction duration would be shorter for Alternatives 1 and 3 than for Alternatives 2 and 4, resulting in less seafloor disturbance, less noise, and less of an impact to water quality, air quality, and transportation. Implementation of the proposed action 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 pile driving 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. The setting of the existing EHW, which is National Register of Historic Places-eligible, would be adversely affected by construction. 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: 110080, 945 pages, March 18, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Demolition KW - Fish KW - Harbor Structures KW - Marine Mammals KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Munitions KW - Noise KW - Safety Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses 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/16373410?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-18&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.&rft.title=TRIDENT+SUPPORT+FACILITIES+EXPLOSIVES+HANDLING+WHARF+%28EHW-2%29%2C+NAVAL+BASE+KITSAP+BANGOR%2C+SILVERDALE%2C+KITSAP+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&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 - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Atmospheric Corrosion Tests of Selected Steel/Coating Materials in Okinawa T2 - 66th Annual Meeting of the National Association of Corrosion Engineering (CORROSION 2011) AN - 1312961586; 6044485 JF - 66th Annual Meeting of the National Association of Corrosion Engineering (CORROSION 2011) AU - Stephenson, Larry AU - Kumar, Ashok AU - Bushman, James AU - Phull, Bopinder Y1 - 2011/03/13/ PY - 2011 DA - 2011 Mar 13 KW - Japan, Nansei-shoto, Okinawa KW - Corrosion KW - Coating materials KW - Steel UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1312961586?accountid=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=66th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+National+Association+of+Corrosion+Engineering+%28CORROSION+2011%29&rft.atitle=Atmospheric+Corrosion+Tests+of+Selected+Steel%2FCoating+Materials+in+Okinawa&rft.au=Stephenson%2C+Larry%3BKumar%2C+Ashok%3BBushman%2C+James%3BPhull%2C+Bopinder&rft.aulast=Stephenson&rft.aufirst=Larry&rft.date=2011-03-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=66th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+National+Association+of+Corrosion+Engineering+%28CORROSION+2011%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://nace.confex.com/nace/2011/webprogram/meeting.html LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2013-02-26 N1 - Last updated - 2013-02-28 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Feasibility Analysis on the Impervious Structure Using Two-graded RCC in Cold Regions AN - 862785778; 14623320 AB - The seepage control for the RCC dams in cold regions is one of important issues of concern at present. The studies on the impervious structures of darns which having been built or under construction show that the impermeability grade of impervious structure using two-graded RCC and distorted concrete can reach W8 similar to W11 when the construction is careful, and the requirements on seepage control for high dams can be met. As no combination of heterogeneous concrete and less construction disturbance, the impervious structure using two-graded RCC and distorted concrete is technically feasible for the seepage control of dams in cold regions, and the application also has significant economic benefits. JF - Shuili Fadian/Water Power AU - Luo, W AD - Xinjiang Investigation and Design Institute for Water Resources and Hydropower, Urumqi 830000, Xinjinag, China Y1 - 2011/03/12/ PY - 2011 DA - 2011 Mar 12 SP - 42 EP - 44 PB - Water Power Press Co., Ltd., No. 2 Beixiaojie Liupukang, Dewai Xicheng District, Beijing, China China VL - 37 IS - 3 SN - 0559-9342, 0559-9342 KW - ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Water Resources Abstracts; Aqualine Abstracts KW - Feasibility studies KW - Seepage Control KW - Concrete KW - Dam Construction KW - Dams KW - Economics KW - Power plants KW - Seepages KW - disturbance KW - Hydroelectric power KW - Concrete Dams KW - seepages KW - Hydroelectric power plants KW - Benefits KW - Cold Regions KW - Economic benefits KW - Q2 09424:Applied economics 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/862785778?accountid=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=Feasibility+Analysis+on+the+Impervious+Structure+Using+Two-graded+RCC+in+Cold+Regions&rft.au=Luo%2C+W&rft.aulast=Luo&rft.aufirst=W&rft.date=2011-03-12&rft.volume=37&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=42&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 - 2011-04-01 N1 - Last updated - 2014-05-02 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Dams; Hydroelectric power; Power plants; Hydroelectric power plants; Seepages; Economic benefits; Feasibility studies; disturbance; Economics; seepages; Concrete; Seepage Control; Concrete Dams; Benefits; Cold Regions; Dam Construction ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 65 of 68] T2 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 873131310; 14827-1_0065 AB - PURPOSE: The mining of phosphate ore at the Blackfoot Bridge Mine, located 10 miles northeast of Soda Springs in Caribou County, Idaho is proposed. P4 Production, LLC (P4), a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto Company, Inc., submitted an initial mine and reclamation plan in November 2005 and a revised plan in October 2008. The revised plan proposes a new open pit phosphate mining operation on federal mineral leases that would include external overburden piles, a haul road, and a water management plan. Under the proposed action, phosphate ore would be mined and hauled eight miles to P4's Soda Springs elemental phosphorous plant for processing. No processing other than typical crushing and screening operations would occur at the mine site and all chemical processing activities would occur at the Soda Springs plant. The Blackfoot Bridge Mine ore reserve would be developed using an open pit mining method on a series of bench cuts, using a combination of in-pit retreating ramps and backfill ramps. The primary equipment for ore and overburden mining would be a combination of trucks, track-mounted excavators, bulldozers, and front-end loaders. A track-hoe excavator would also be used to maximize recovery of ore in the bottom of the pit. The project would be mined in a phased approach with mining and reclamation activities continuing for 17 years. Ore would be recovered from three mine pits beginning in Mid Pit, followed by the North Pit and South Pit. All overburden would either be backfilled into mined-out portions of the mine pits or placed in the external east overburden pile or northwest overburden pile. Facilities would include: 1) an ore stockpile and truck loading area; 2) an ore truck turnaround loop and equipment yard; 3) two water management ponds and other water control structures; 4) topsoil stockpiles; 5) sediment control dams; 6) roads; and 7) sediment control structures. A surface water diversion ditch would be constructed from the unnamed tributary to Fish Pond to the water management ponds. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, a layer of impermeable material would be constructed between the segregated Meade Peak overburden and the applied growth medium to eliminate potential effects of water infiltrating into the backfilled pits and external overburden piles. Alternative 1A, which is the preferred alternative, would use a geosynthetic clay laminate layer (GCLL) cover system over core materials in the east overburden pile and overburden pits. Alternative 1B would use a GCLL over the entire east overburden pile and overburden pits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would ensure economically viable development of phosphate resources and allow the lessee to exercise its right to develop those resources. Reduced infiltration of precipitation into the backfilled overburden and east overburden pile would reduce the concentration of selenium and constituents of particular concern in groundwater that discharges to the Blackfoot River to levels that would meet local water quality standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of 91 million bank cubic yards of overburden would disturb soils, increase erosion and sediment transport rates, and result in the loss of 99 acres of wildlife habitat and of 9.4 acres of wetlands. Mining would result in release of selenium and trace metals and groundwater quality would be potentially impacted by seepage from the proposed overburden piles and backfilled pits. Construction of facilities would have effects on topography and stability of the landscape. Surface disturbance would total 739 acres and 65 acres not reclaimed would represent long-term modification. Annual fugitive dust emissions from mining operations would be 138 tons per year. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, potential reduction in groundwater levels would be greater than that predicted under the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0265D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110071, 921 pages and maps, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 65 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-ID-320-2006-EIS-1553 KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Diversion Structures KW - Emissions KW - Erosion KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Phosphates KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Soils KW - Water Quality KW - Idaho KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131310?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 64 of 68] T2 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 873131305; 14827-1_0064 AB - PURPOSE: The mining of phosphate ore at the Blackfoot Bridge Mine, located 10 miles northeast of Soda Springs in Caribou County, Idaho is proposed. P4 Production, LLC (P4), a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto Company, Inc., submitted an initial mine and reclamation plan in November 2005 and a revised plan in October 2008. The revised plan proposes a new open pit phosphate mining operation on federal mineral leases that would include external overburden piles, a haul road, and a water management plan. Under the proposed action, phosphate ore would be mined and hauled eight miles to P4's Soda Springs elemental phosphorous plant for processing. No processing other than typical crushing and screening operations would occur at the mine site and all chemical processing activities would occur at the Soda Springs plant. The Blackfoot Bridge Mine ore reserve would be developed using an open pit mining method on a series of bench cuts, using a combination of in-pit retreating ramps and backfill ramps. The primary equipment for ore and overburden mining would be a combination of trucks, track-mounted excavators, bulldozers, and front-end loaders. A track-hoe excavator would also be used to maximize recovery of ore in the bottom of the pit. The project would be mined in a phased approach with mining and reclamation activities continuing for 17 years. Ore would be recovered from three mine pits beginning in Mid Pit, followed by the North Pit and South Pit. All overburden would either be backfilled into mined-out portions of the mine pits or placed in the external east overburden pile or northwest overburden pile. Facilities would include: 1) an ore stockpile and truck loading area; 2) an ore truck turnaround loop and equipment yard; 3) two water management ponds and other water control structures; 4) topsoil stockpiles; 5) sediment control dams; 6) roads; and 7) sediment control structures. A surface water diversion ditch would be constructed from the unnamed tributary to Fish Pond to the water management ponds. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, a layer of impermeable material would be constructed between the segregated Meade Peak overburden and the applied growth medium to eliminate potential effects of water infiltrating into the backfilled pits and external overburden piles. Alternative 1A, which is the preferred alternative, would use a geosynthetic clay laminate layer (GCLL) cover system over core materials in the east overburden pile and overburden pits. Alternative 1B would use a GCLL over the entire east overburden pile and overburden pits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would ensure economically viable development of phosphate resources and allow the lessee to exercise its right to develop those resources. Reduced infiltration of precipitation into the backfilled overburden and east overburden pile would reduce the concentration of selenium and constituents of particular concern in groundwater that discharges to the Blackfoot River to levels that would meet local water quality standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of 91 million bank cubic yards of overburden would disturb soils, increase erosion and sediment transport rates, and result in the loss of 99 acres of wildlife habitat and of 9.4 acres of wetlands. Mining would result in release of selenium and trace metals and groundwater quality would be potentially impacted by seepage from the proposed overburden piles and backfilled pits. Construction of facilities would have effects on topography and stability of the landscape. Surface disturbance would total 739 acres and 65 acres not reclaimed would represent long-term modification. Annual fugitive dust emissions from mining operations would be 138 tons per year. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, potential reduction in groundwater levels would be greater than that predicted under the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0265D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110071, 921 pages and maps, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 64 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-ID-320-2006-EIS-1553 KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Diversion Structures KW - Emissions KW - Erosion KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Phosphates KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Soils KW - Water Quality KW - Idaho KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131305?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 63 of 68] T2 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 873131293; 14827-1_0063 AB - PURPOSE: The mining of phosphate ore at the Blackfoot Bridge Mine, located 10 miles northeast of Soda Springs in Caribou County, Idaho is proposed. P4 Production, LLC (P4), a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto Company, Inc., submitted an initial mine and reclamation plan in November 2005 and a revised plan in October 2008. The revised plan proposes a new open pit phosphate mining operation on federal mineral leases that would include external overburden piles, a haul road, and a water management plan. Under the proposed action, phosphate ore would be mined and hauled eight miles to P4's Soda Springs elemental phosphorous plant for processing. No processing other than typical crushing and screening operations would occur at the mine site and all chemical processing activities would occur at the Soda Springs plant. The Blackfoot Bridge Mine ore reserve would be developed using an open pit mining method on a series of bench cuts, using a combination of in-pit retreating ramps and backfill ramps. The primary equipment for ore and overburden mining would be a combination of trucks, track-mounted excavators, bulldozers, and front-end loaders. A track-hoe excavator would also be used to maximize recovery of ore in the bottom of the pit. The project would be mined in a phased approach with mining and reclamation activities continuing for 17 years. Ore would be recovered from three mine pits beginning in Mid Pit, followed by the North Pit and South Pit. All overburden would either be backfilled into mined-out portions of the mine pits or placed in the external east overburden pile or northwest overburden pile. Facilities would include: 1) an ore stockpile and truck loading area; 2) an ore truck turnaround loop and equipment yard; 3) two water management ponds and other water control structures; 4) topsoil stockpiles; 5) sediment control dams; 6) roads; and 7) sediment control structures. A surface water diversion ditch would be constructed from the unnamed tributary to Fish Pond to the water management ponds. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, a layer of impermeable material would be constructed between the segregated Meade Peak overburden and the applied growth medium to eliminate potential effects of water infiltrating into the backfilled pits and external overburden piles. Alternative 1A, which is the preferred alternative, would use a geosynthetic clay laminate layer (GCLL) cover system over core materials in the east overburden pile and overburden pits. Alternative 1B would use a GCLL over the entire east overburden pile and overburden pits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would ensure economically viable development of phosphate resources and allow the lessee to exercise its right to develop those resources. Reduced infiltration of precipitation into the backfilled overburden and east overburden pile would reduce the concentration of selenium and constituents of particular concern in groundwater that discharges to the Blackfoot River to levels that would meet local water quality standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of 91 million bank cubic yards of overburden would disturb soils, increase erosion and sediment transport rates, and result in the loss of 99 acres of wildlife habitat and of 9.4 acres of wetlands. Mining would result in release of selenium and trace metals and groundwater quality would be potentially impacted by seepage from the proposed overburden piles and backfilled pits. Construction of facilities would have effects on topography and stability of the landscape. Surface disturbance would total 739 acres and 65 acres not reclaimed would represent long-term modification. Annual fugitive dust emissions from mining operations would be 138 tons per year. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, potential reduction in groundwater levels would be greater than that predicted under the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0265D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110071, 921 pages and maps, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 63 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-ID-320-2006-EIS-1553 KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Diversion Structures KW - Emissions KW - Erosion KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Phosphates KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Soils KW - Water Quality KW - Idaho KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131293?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 53 of 68] T2 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 873131276; 14827-1_0053 AB - PURPOSE: The mining of phosphate ore at the Blackfoot Bridge Mine, located 10 miles northeast of Soda Springs in Caribou County, Idaho is proposed. P4 Production, LLC (P4), a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto Company, Inc., submitted an initial mine and reclamation plan in November 2005 and a revised plan in October 2008. The revised plan proposes a new open pit phosphate mining operation on federal mineral leases that would include external overburden piles, a haul road, and a water management plan. Under the proposed action, phosphate ore would be mined and hauled eight miles to P4's Soda Springs elemental phosphorous plant for processing. No processing other than typical crushing and screening operations would occur at the mine site and all chemical processing activities would occur at the Soda Springs plant. The Blackfoot Bridge Mine ore reserve would be developed using an open pit mining method on a series of bench cuts, using a combination of in-pit retreating ramps and backfill ramps. The primary equipment for ore and overburden mining would be a combination of trucks, track-mounted excavators, bulldozers, and front-end loaders. A track-hoe excavator would also be used to maximize recovery of ore in the bottom of the pit. The project would be mined in a phased approach with mining and reclamation activities continuing for 17 years. Ore would be recovered from three mine pits beginning in Mid Pit, followed by the North Pit and South Pit. All overburden would either be backfilled into mined-out portions of the mine pits or placed in the external east overburden pile or northwest overburden pile. Facilities would include: 1) an ore stockpile and truck loading area; 2) an ore truck turnaround loop and equipment yard; 3) two water management ponds and other water control structures; 4) topsoil stockpiles; 5) sediment control dams; 6) roads; and 7) sediment control structures. A surface water diversion ditch would be constructed from the unnamed tributary to Fish Pond to the water management ponds. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, a layer of impermeable material would be constructed between the segregated Meade Peak overburden and the applied growth medium to eliminate potential effects of water infiltrating into the backfilled pits and external overburden piles. Alternative 1A, which is the preferred alternative, would use a geosynthetic clay laminate layer (GCLL) cover system over core materials in the east overburden pile and overburden pits. Alternative 1B would use a GCLL over the entire east overburden pile and overburden pits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would ensure economically viable development of phosphate resources and allow the lessee to exercise its right to develop those resources. Reduced infiltration of precipitation into the backfilled overburden and east overburden pile would reduce the concentration of selenium and constituents of particular concern in groundwater that discharges to the Blackfoot River to levels that would meet local water quality standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of 91 million bank cubic yards of overburden would disturb soils, increase erosion and sediment transport rates, and result in the loss of 99 acres of wildlife habitat and of 9.4 acres of wetlands. Mining would result in release of selenium and trace metals and groundwater quality would be potentially impacted by seepage from the proposed overburden piles and backfilled pits. Construction of facilities would have effects on topography and stability of the landscape. Surface disturbance would total 739 acres and 65 acres not reclaimed would represent long-term modification. Annual fugitive dust emissions from mining operations would be 138 tons per year. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, potential reduction in groundwater levels would be greater than that predicted under the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0265D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110071, 921 pages and maps, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 53 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-ID-320-2006-EIS-1553 KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Diversion Structures KW - Emissions KW - Erosion KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Phosphates KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Soils KW - Water Quality KW - Idaho KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131276?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 52 of 68] T2 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 873131257; 14827-1_0052 AB - PURPOSE: The mining of phosphate ore at the Blackfoot Bridge Mine, located 10 miles northeast of Soda Springs in Caribou County, Idaho is proposed. P4 Production, LLC (P4), a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto Company, Inc., submitted an initial mine and reclamation plan in November 2005 and a revised plan in October 2008. The revised plan proposes a new open pit phosphate mining operation on federal mineral leases that would include external overburden piles, a haul road, and a water management plan. Under the proposed action, phosphate ore would be mined and hauled eight miles to P4's Soda Springs elemental phosphorous plant for processing. No processing other than typical crushing and screening operations would occur at the mine site and all chemical processing activities would occur at the Soda Springs plant. The Blackfoot Bridge Mine ore reserve would be developed using an open pit mining method on a series of bench cuts, using a combination of in-pit retreating ramps and backfill ramps. The primary equipment for ore and overburden mining would be a combination of trucks, track-mounted excavators, bulldozers, and front-end loaders. A track-hoe excavator would also be used to maximize recovery of ore in the bottom of the pit. The project would be mined in a phased approach with mining and reclamation activities continuing for 17 years. Ore would be recovered from three mine pits beginning in Mid Pit, followed by the North Pit and South Pit. All overburden would either be backfilled into mined-out portions of the mine pits or placed in the external east overburden pile or northwest overburden pile. Facilities would include: 1) an ore stockpile and truck loading area; 2) an ore truck turnaround loop and equipment yard; 3) two water management ponds and other water control structures; 4) topsoil stockpiles; 5) sediment control dams; 6) roads; and 7) sediment control structures. A surface water diversion ditch would be constructed from the unnamed tributary to Fish Pond to the water management ponds. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, a layer of impermeable material would be constructed between the segregated Meade Peak overburden and the applied growth medium to eliminate potential effects of water infiltrating into the backfilled pits and external overburden piles. Alternative 1A, which is the preferred alternative, would use a geosynthetic clay laminate layer (GCLL) cover system over core materials in the east overburden pile and overburden pits. Alternative 1B would use a GCLL over the entire east overburden pile and overburden pits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would ensure economically viable development of phosphate resources and allow the lessee to exercise its right to develop those resources. Reduced infiltration of precipitation into the backfilled overburden and east overburden pile would reduce the concentration of selenium and constituents of particular concern in groundwater that discharges to the Blackfoot River to levels that would meet local water quality standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of 91 million bank cubic yards of overburden would disturb soils, increase erosion and sediment transport rates, and result in the loss of 99 acres of wildlife habitat and of 9.4 acres of wetlands. Mining would result in release of selenium and trace metals and groundwater quality would be potentially impacted by seepage from the proposed overburden piles and backfilled pits. Construction of facilities would have effects on topography and stability of the landscape. Surface disturbance would total 739 acres and 65 acres not reclaimed would represent long-term modification. Annual fugitive dust emissions from mining operations would be 138 tons per year. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, potential reduction in groundwater levels would be greater than that predicted under the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0265D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110071, 921 pages and maps, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 52 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-ID-320-2006-EIS-1553 KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Diversion Structures KW - Emissions KW - Erosion KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Phosphates KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Soils KW - Water Quality KW - Idaho KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131257?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 51 of 68] T2 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 873131248; 14827-1_0051 AB - PURPOSE: The mining of phosphate ore at the Blackfoot Bridge Mine, located 10 miles northeast of Soda Springs in Caribou County, Idaho is proposed. P4 Production, LLC (P4), a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto Company, Inc., submitted an initial mine and reclamation plan in November 2005 and a revised plan in October 2008. The revised plan proposes a new open pit phosphate mining operation on federal mineral leases that would include external overburden piles, a haul road, and a water management plan. Under the proposed action, phosphate ore would be mined and hauled eight miles to P4's Soda Springs elemental phosphorous plant for processing. No processing other than typical crushing and screening operations would occur at the mine site and all chemical processing activities would occur at the Soda Springs plant. The Blackfoot Bridge Mine ore reserve would be developed using an open pit mining method on a series of bench cuts, using a combination of in-pit retreating ramps and backfill ramps. The primary equipment for ore and overburden mining would be a combination of trucks, track-mounted excavators, bulldozers, and front-end loaders. A track-hoe excavator would also be used to maximize recovery of ore in the bottom of the pit. The project would be mined in a phased approach with mining and reclamation activities continuing for 17 years. Ore would be recovered from three mine pits beginning in Mid Pit, followed by the North Pit and South Pit. All overburden would either be backfilled into mined-out portions of the mine pits or placed in the external east overburden pile or northwest overburden pile. Facilities would include: 1) an ore stockpile and truck loading area; 2) an ore truck turnaround loop and equipment yard; 3) two water management ponds and other water control structures; 4) topsoil stockpiles; 5) sediment control dams; 6) roads; and 7) sediment control structures. A surface water diversion ditch would be constructed from the unnamed tributary to Fish Pond to the water management ponds. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, a layer of impermeable material would be constructed between the segregated Meade Peak overburden and the applied growth medium to eliminate potential effects of water infiltrating into the backfilled pits and external overburden piles. Alternative 1A, which is the preferred alternative, would use a geosynthetic clay laminate layer (GCLL) cover system over core materials in the east overburden pile and overburden pits. Alternative 1B would use a GCLL over the entire east overburden pile and overburden pits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would ensure economically viable development of phosphate resources and allow the lessee to exercise its right to develop those resources. Reduced infiltration of precipitation into the backfilled overburden and east overburden pile would reduce the concentration of selenium and constituents of particular concern in groundwater that discharges to the Blackfoot River to levels that would meet local water quality standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of 91 million bank cubic yards of overburden would disturb soils, increase erosion and sediment transport rates, and result in the loss of 99 acres of wildlife habitat and of 9.4 acres of wetlands. Mining would result in release of selenium and trace metals and groundwater quality would be potentially impacted by seepage from the proposed overburden piles and backfilled pits. Construction of facilities would have effects on topography and stability of the landscape. Surface disturbance would total 739 acres and 65 acres not reclaimed would represent long-term modification. Annual fugitive dust emissions from mining operations would be 138 tons per year. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, potential reduction in groundwater levels would be greater than that predicted under the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0265D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110071, 921 pages and maps, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 51 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-ID-320-2006-EIS-1553 KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Diversion Structures KW - Emissions KW - Erosion KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Phosphates KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Soils KW - Water Quality KW - Idaho KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131248?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 50 of 68] T2 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 873131240; 14827-1_0050 AB - PURPOSE: The mining of phosphate ore at the Blackfoot Bridge Mine, located 10 miles northeast of Soda Springs in Caribou County, Idaho is proposed. P4 Production, LLC (P4), a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto Company, Inc., submitted an initial mine and reclamation plan in November 2005 and a revised plan in October 2008. The revised plan proposes a new open pit phosphate mining operation on federal mineral leases that would include external overburden piles, a haul road, and a water management plan. Under the proposed action, phosphate ore would be mined and hauled eight miles to P4's Soda Springs elemental phosphorous plant for processing. No processing other than typical crushing and screening operations would occur at the mine site and all chemical processing activities would occur at the Soda Springs plant. The Blackfoot Bridge Mine ore reserve would be developed using an open pit mining method on a series of bench cuts, using a combination of in-pit retreating ramps and backfill ramps. The primary equipment for ore and overburden mining would be a combination of trucks, track-mounted excavators, bulldozers, and front-end loaders. A track-hoe excavator would also be used to maximize recovery of ore in the bottom of the pit. The project would be mined in a phased approach with mining and reclamation activities continuing for 17 years. Ore would be recovered from three mine pits beginning in Mid Pit, followed by the North Pit and South Pit. All overburden would either be backfilled into mined-out portions of the mine pits or placed in the external east overburden pile or northwest overburden pile. Facilities would include: 1) an ore stockpile and truck loading area; 2) an ore truck turnaround loop and equipment yard; 3) two water management ponds and other water control structures; 4) topsoil stockpiles; 5) sediment control dams; 6) roads; and 7) sediment control structures. A surface water diversion ditch would be constructed from the unnamed tributary to Fish Pond to the water management ponds. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, a layer of impermeable material would be constructed between the segregated Meade Peak overburden and the applied growth medium to eliminate potential effects of water infiltrating into the backfilled pits and external overburden piles. Alternative 1A, which is the preferred alternative, would use a geosynthetic clay laminate layer (GCLL) cover system over core materials in the east overburden pile and overburden pits. Alternative 1B would use a GCLL over the entire east overburden pile and overburden pits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would ensure economically viable development of phosphate resources and allow the lessee to exercise its right to develop those resources. Reduced infiltration of precipitation into the backfilled overburden and east overburden pile would reduce the concentration of selenium and constituents of particular concern in groundwater that discharges to the Blackfoot River to levels that would meet local water quality standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of 91 million bank cubic yards of overburden would disturb soils, increase erosion and sediment transport rates, and result in the loss of 99 acres of wildlife habitat and of 9.4 acres of wetlands. Mining would result in release of selenium and trace metals and groundwater quality would be potentially impacted by seepage from the proposed overburden piles and backfilled pits. Construction of facilities would have effects on topography and stability of the landscape. Surface disturbance would total 739 acres and 65 acres not reclaimed would represent long-term modification. Annual fugitive dust emissions from mining operations would be 138 tons per year. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, potential reduction in groundwater levels would be greater than that predicted under the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0265D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110071, 921 pages and maps, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 50 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-ID-320-2006-EIS-1553 KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Diversion Structures KW - Emissions KW - Erosion KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Phosphates KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Soils KW - Water Quality KW - Idaho KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131240?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 46 of 68] T2 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 873131230; 14827-1_0046 AB - PURPOSE: The mining of phosphate ore at the Blackfoot Bridge Mine, located 10 miles northeast of Soda Springs in Caribou County, Idaho is proposed. P4 Production, LLC (P4), a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto Company, Inc., submitted an initial mine and reclamation plan in November 2005 and a revised plan in October 2008. The revised plan proposes a new open pit phosphate mining operation on federal mineral leases that would include external overburden piles, a haul road, and a water management plan. Under the proposed action, phosphate ore would be mined and hauled eight miles to P4's Soda Springs elemental phosphorous plant for processing. No processing other than typical crushing and screening operations would occur at the mine site and all chemical processing activities would occur at the Soda Springs plant. The Blackfoot Bridge Mine ore reserve would be developed using an open pit mining method on a series of bench cuts, using a combination of in-pit retreating ramps and backfill ramps. The primary equipment for ore and overburden mining would be a combination of trucks, track-mounted excavators, bulldozers, and front-end loaders. A track-hoe excavator would also be used to maximize recovery of ore in the bottom of the pit. The project would be mined in a phased approach with mining and reclamation activities continuing for 17 years. Ore would be recovered from three mine pits beginning in Mid Pit, followed by the North Pit and South Pit. All overburden would either be backfilled into mined-out portions of the mine pits or placed in the external east overburden pile or northwest overburden pile. Facilities would include: 1) an ore stockpile and truck loading area; 2) an ore truck turnaround loop and equipment yard; 3) two water management ponds and other water control structures; 4) topsoil stockpiles; 5) sediment control dams; 6) roads; and 7) sediment control structures. A surface water diversion ditch would be constructed from the unnamed tributary to Fish Pond to the water management ponds. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, a layer of impermeable material would be constructed between the segregated Meade Peak overburden and the applied growth medium to eliminate potential effects of water infiltrating into the backfilled pits and external overburden piles. Alternative 1A, which is the preferred alternative, would use a geosynthetic clay laminate layer (GCLL) cover system over core materials in the east overburden pile and overburden pits. Alternative 1B would use a GCLL over the entire east overburden pile and overburden pits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would ensure economically viable development of phosphate resources and allow the lessee to exercise its right to develop those resources. Reduced infiltration of precipitation into the backfilled overburden and east overburden pile would reduce the concentration of selenium and constituents of particular concern in groundwater that discharges to the Blackfoot River to levels that would meet local water quality standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of 91 million bank cubic yards of overburden would disturb soils, increase erosion and sediment transport rates, and result in the loss of 99 acres of wildlife habitat and of 9.4 acres of wetlands. Mining would result in release of selenium and trace metals and groundwater quality would be potentially impacted by seepage from the proposed overburden piles and backfilled pits. Construction of facilities would have effects on topography and stability of the landscape. Surface disturbance would total 739 acres and 65 acres not reclaimed would represent long-term modification. Annual fugitive dust emissions from mining operations would be 138 tons per year. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, potential reduction in groundwater levels would be greater than that predicted under the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0265D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110071, 921 pages and maps, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 46 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-ID-320-2006-EIS-1553 KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Diversion Structures KW - Emissions KW - Erosion KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Phosphates KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Soils KW - Water Quality KW - Idaho KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131230?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 45 of 68] T2 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 873131217; 14827-1_0045 AB - PURPOSE: The mining of phosphate ore at the Blackfoot Bridge Mine, located 10 miles northeast of Soda Springs in Caribou County, Idaho is proposed. P4 Production, LLC (P4), a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto Company, Inc., submitted an initial mine and reclamation plan in November 2005 and a revised plan in October 2008. The revised plan proposes a new open pit phosphate mining operation on federal mineral leases that would include external overburden piles, a haul road, and a water management plan. Under the proposed action, phosphate ore would be mined and hauled eight miles to P4's Soda Springs elemental phosphorous plant for processing. No processing other than typical crushing and screening operations would occur at the mine site and all chemical processing activities would occur at the Soda Springs plant. The Blackfoot Bridge Mine ore reserve would be developed using an open pit mining method on a series of bench cuts, using a combination of in-pit retreating ramps and backfill ramps. The primary equipment for ore and overburden mining would be a combination of trucks, track-mounted excavators, bulldozers, and front-end loaders. A track-hoe excavator would also be used to maximize recovery of ore in the bottom of the pit. The project would be mined in a phased approach with mining and reclamation activities continuing for 17 years. Ore would be recovered from three mine pits beginning in Mid Pit, followed by the North Pit and South Pit. All overburden would either be backfilled into mined-out portions of the mine pits or placed in the external east overburden pile or northwest overburden pile. Facilities would include: 1) an ore stockpile and truck loading area; 2) an ore truck turnaround loop and equipment yard; 3) two water management ponds and other water control structures; 4) topsoil stockpiles; 5) sediment control dams; 6) roads; and 7) sediment control structures. A surface water diversion ditch would be constructed from the unnamed tributary to Fish Pond to the water management ponds. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, a layer of impermeable material would be constructed between the segregated Meade Peak overburden and the applied growth medium to eliminate potential effects of water infiltrating into the backfilled pits and external overburden piles. Alternative 1A, which is the preferred alternative, would use a geosynthetic clay laminate layer (GCLL) cover system over core materials in the east overburden pile and overburden pits. Alternative 1B would use a GCLL over the entire east overburden pile and overburden pits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would ensure economically viable development of phosphate resources and allow the lessee to exercise its right to develop those resources. Reduced infiltration of precipitation into the backfilled overburden and east overburden pile would reduce the concentration of selenium and constituents of particular concern in groundwater that discharges to the Blackfoot River to levels that would meet local water quality standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of 91 million bank cubic yards of overburden would disturb soils, increase erosion and sediment transport rates, and result in the loss of 99 acres of wildlife habitat and of 9.4 acres of wetlands. Mining would result in release of selenium and trace metals and groundwater quality would be potentially impacted by seepage from the proposed overburden piles and backfilled pits. Construction of facilities would have effects on topography and stability of the landscape. Surface disturbance would total 739 acres and 65 acres not reclaimed would represent long-term modification. Annual fugitive dust emissions from mining operations would be 138 tons per year. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, potential reduction in groundwater levels would be greater than that predicted under the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0265D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110071, 921 pages and maps, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 45 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-ID-320-2006-EIS-1553 KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Diversion Structures KW - Emissions KW - Erosion KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Phosphates KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Soils KW - Water Quality KW - Idaho KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131217?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 44 of 68] T2 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 873131209; 14827-1_0044 AB - PURPOSE: The mining of phosphate ore at the Blackfoot Bridge Mine, located 10 miles northeast of Soda Springs in Caribou County, Idaho is proposed. P4 Production, LLC (P4), a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto Company, Inc., submitted an initial mine and reclamation plan in November 2005 and a revised plan in October 2008. The revised plan proposes a new open pit phosphate mining operation on federal mineral leases that would include external overburden piles, a haul road, and a water management plan. Under the proposed action, phosphate ore would be mined and hauled eight miles to P4's Soda Springs elemental phosphorous plant for processing. No processing other than typical crushing and screening operations would occur at the mine site and all chemical processing activities would occur at the Soda Springs plant. The Blackfoot Bridge Mine ore reserve would be developed using an open pit mining method on a series of bench cuts, using a combination of in-pit retreating ramps and backfill ramps. The primary equipment for ore and overburden mining would be a combination of trucks, track-mounted excavators, bulldozers, and front-end loaders. A track-hoe excavator would also be used to maximize recovery of ore in the bottom of the pit. The project would be mined in a phased approach with mining and reclamation activities continuing for 17 years. Ore would be recovered from three mine pits beginning in Mid Pit, followed by the North Pit and South Pit. All overburden would either be backfilled into mined-out portions of the mine pits or placed in the external east overburden pile or northwest overburden pile. Facilities would include: 1) an ore stockpile and truck loading area; 2) an ore truck turnaround loop and equipment yard; 3) two water management ponds and other water control structures; 4) topsoil stockpiles; 5) sediment control dams; 6) roads; and 7) sediment control structures. A surface water diversion ditch would be constructed from the unnamed tributary to Fish Pond to the water management ponds. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, a layer of impermeable material would be constructed between the segregated Meade Peak overburden and the applied growth medium to eliminate potential effects of water infiltrating into the backfilled pits and external overburden piles. Alternative 1A, which is the preferred alternative, would use a geosynthetic clay laminate layer (GCLL) cover system over core materials in the east overburden pile and overburden pits. Alternative 1B would use a GCLL over the entire east overburden pile and overburden pits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would ensure economically viable development of phosphate resources and allow the lessee to exercise its right to develop those resources. Reduced infiltration of precipitation into the backfilled overburden and east overburden pile would reduce the concentration of selenium and constituents of particular concern in groundwater that discharges to the Blackfoot River to levels that would meet local water quality standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of 91 million bank cubic yards of overburden would disturb soils, increase erosion and sediment transport rates, and result in the loss of 99 acres of wildlife habitat and of 9.4 acres of wetlands. Mining would result in release of selenium and trace metals and groundwater quality would be potentially impacted by seepage from the proposed overburden piles and backfilled pits. Construction of facilities would have effects on topography and stability of the landscape. Surface disturbance would total 739 acres and 65 acres not reclaimed would represent long-term modification. Annual fugitive dust emissions from mining operations would be 138 tons per year. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, potential reduction in groundwater levels would be greater than that predicted under the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0265D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110071, 921 pages and maps, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 44 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-ID-320-2006-EIS-1553 KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Diversion Structures KW - Emissions KW - Erosion KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Phosphates KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Soils KW - Water Quality KW - Idaho KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131209?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 43 of 68] T2 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 873131198; 14827-1_0043 AB - PURPOSE: The mining of phosphate ore at the Blackfoot Bridge Mine, located 10 miles northeast of Soda Springs in Caribou County, Idaho is proposed. P4 Production, LLC (P4), a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto Company, Inc., submitted an initial mine and reclamation plan in November 2005 and a revised plan in October 2008. The revised plan proposes a new open pit phosphate mining operation on federal mineral leases that would include external overburden piles, a haul road, and a water management plan. Under the proposed action, phosphate ore would be mined and hauled eight miles to P4's Soda Springs elemental phosphorous plant for processing. No processing other than typical crushing and screening operations would occur at the mine site and all chemical processing activities would occur at the Soda Springs plant. The Blackfoot Bridge Mine ore reserve would be developed using an open pit mining method on a series of bench cuts, using a combination of in-pit retreating ramps and backfill ramps. The primary equipment for ore and overburden mining would be a combination of trucks, track-mounted excavators, bulldozers, and front-end loaders. A track-hoe excavator would also be used to maximize recovery of ore in the bottom of the pit. The project would be mined in a phased approach with mining and reclamation activities continuing for 17 years. Ore would be recovered from three mine pits beginning in Mid Pit, followed by the North Pit and South Pit. All overburden would either be backfilled into mined-out portions of the mine pits or placed in the external east overburden pile or northwest overburden pile. Facilities would include: 1) an ore stockpile and truck loading area; 2) an ore truck turnaround loop and equipment yard; 3) two water management ponds and other water control structures; 4) topsoil stockpiles; 5) sediment control dams; 6) roads; and 7) sediment control structures. A surface water diversion ditch would be constructed from the unnamed tributary to Fish Pond to the water management ponds. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, a layer of impermeable material would be constructed between the segregated Meade Peak overburden and the applied growth medium to eliminate potential effects of water infiltrating into the backfilled pits and external overburden piles. Alternative 1A, which is the preferred alternative, would use a geosynthetic clay laminate layer (GCLL) cover system over core materials in the east overburden pile and overburden pits. Alternative 1B would use a GCLL over the entire east overburden pile and overburden pits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would ensure economically viable development of phosphate resources and allow the lessee to exercise its right to develop those resources. Reduced infiltration of precipitation into the backfilled overburden and east overburden pile would reduce the concentration of selenium and constituents of particular concern in groundwater that discharges to the Blackfoot River to levels that would meet local water quality standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of 91 million bank cubic yards of overburden would disturb soils, increase erosion and sediment transport rates, and result in the loss of 99 acres of wildlife habitat and of 9.4 acres of wetlands. Mining would result in release of selenium and trace metals and groundwater quality would be potentially impacted by seepage from the proposed overburden piles and backfilled pits. Construction of facilities would have effects on topography and stability of the landscape. Surface disturbance would total 739 acres and 65 acres not reclaimed would represent long-term modification. Annual fugitive dust emissions from mining operations would be 138 tons per year. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, potential reduction in groundwater levels would be greater than that predicted under the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0265D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110071, 921 pages and maps, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 43 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-ID-320-2006-EIS-1553 KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Diversion Structures KW - Emissions KW - Erosion KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Phosphates KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Soils KW - Water Quality KW - Idaho KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131198?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 31 of 68] T2 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 873131187; 14827-1_0031 AB - PURPOSE: The mining of phosphate ore at the Blackfoot Bridge Mine, located 10 miles northeast of Soda Springs in Caribou County, Idaho is proposed. P4 Production, LLC (P4), a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto Company, Inc., submitted an initial mine and reclamation plan in November 2005 and a revised plan in October 2008. The revised plan proposes a new open pit phosphate mining operation on federal mineral leases that would include external overburden piles, a haul road, and a water management plan. Under the proposed action, phosphate ore would be mined and hauled eight miles to P4's Soda Springs elemental phosphorous plant for processing. No processing other than typical crushing and screening operations would occur at the mine site and all chemical processing activities would occur at the Soda Springs plant. The Blackfoot Bridge Mine ore reserve would be developed using an open pit mining method on a series of bench cuts, using a combination of in-pit retreating ramps and backfill ramps. The primary equipment for ore and overburden mining would be a combination of trucks, track-mounted excavators, bulldozers, and front-end loaders. A track-hoe excavator would also be used to maximize recovery of ore in the bottom of the pit. The project would be mined in a phased approach with mining and reclamation activities continuing for 17 years. Ore would be recovered from three mine pits beginning in Mid Pit, followed by the North Pit and South Pit. All overburden would either be backfilled into mined-out portions of the mine pits or placed in the external east overburden pile or northwest overburden pile. Facilities would include: 1) an ore stockpile and truck loading area; 2) an ore truck turnaround loop and equipment yard; 3) two water management ponds and other water control structures; 4) topsoil stockpiles; 5) sediment control dams; 6) roads; and 7) sediment control structures. A surface water diversion ditch would be constructed from the unnamed tributary to Fish Pond to the water management ponds. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, a layer of impermeable material would be constructed between the segregated Meade Peak overburden and the applied growth medium to eliminate potential effects of water infiltrating into the backfilled pits and external overburden piles. Alternative 1A, which is the preferred alternative, would use a geosynthetic clay laminate layer (GCLL) cover system over core materials in the east overburden pile and overburden pits. Alternative 1B would use a GCLL over the entire east overburden pile and overburden pits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would ensure economically viable development of phosphate resources and allow the lessee to exercise its right to develop those resources. Reduced infiltration of precipitation into the backfilled overburden and east overburden pile would reduce the concentration of selenium and constituents of particular concern in groundwater that discharges to the Blackfoot River to levels that would meet local water quality standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of 91 million bank cubic yards of overburden would disturb soils, increase erosion and sediment transport rates, and result in the loss of 99 acres of wildlife habitat and of 9.4 acres of wetlands. Mining would result in release of selenium and trace metals and groundwater quality would be potentially impacted by seepage from the proposed overburden piles and backfilled pits. Construction of facilities would have effects on topography and stability of the landscape. Surface disturbance would total 739 acres and 65 acres not reclaimed would represent long-term modification. Annual fugitive dust emissions from mining operations would be 138 tons per year. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, potential reduction in groundwater levels would be greater than that predicted under the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0265D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110071, 921 pages and maps, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 31 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-ID-320-2006-EIS-1553 KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Diversion Structures KW - Emissions KW - Erosion KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Phosphates KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Soils KW - Water Quality KW - Idaho KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131187?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 30 of 68] T2 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 873131175; 14827-1_0030 AB - PURPOSE: The mining of phosphate ore at the Blackfoot Bridge Mine, located 10 miles northeast of Soda Springs in Caribou County, Idaho is proposed. P4 Production, LLC (P4), a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto Company, Inc., submitted an initial mine and reclamation plan in November 2005 and a revised plan in October 2008. The revised plan proposes a new open pit phosphate mining operation on federal mineral leases that would include external overburden piles, a haul road, and a water management plan. Under the proposed action, phosphate ore would be mined and hauled eight miles to P4's Soda Springs elemental phosphorous plant for processing. No processing other than typical crushing and screening operations would occur at the mine site and all chemical processing activities would occur at the Soda Springs plant. The Blackfoot Bridge Mine ore reserve would be developed using an open pit mining method on a series of bench cuts, using a combination of in-pit retreating ramps and backfill ramps. The primary equipment for ore and overburden mining would be a combination of trucks, track-mounted excavators, bulldozers, and front-end loaders. A track-hoe excavator would also be used to maximize recovery of ore in the bottom of the pit. The project would be mined in a phased approach with mining and reclamation activities continuing for 17 years. Ore would be recovered from three mine pits beginning in Mid Pit, followed by the North Pit and South Pit. All overburden would either be backfilled into mined-out portions of the mine pits or placed in the external east overburden pile or northwest overburden pile. Facilities would include: 1) an ore stockpile and truck loading area; 2) an ore truck turnaround loop and equipment yard; 3) two water management ponds and other water control structures; 4) topsoil stockpiles; 5) sediment control dams; 6) roads; and 7) sediment control structures. A surface water diversion ditch would be constructed from the unnamed tributary to Fish Pond to the water management ponds. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, a layer of impermeable material would be constructed between the segregated Meade Peak overburden and the applied growth medium to eliminate potential effects of water infiltrating into the backfilled pits and external overburden piles. Alternative 1A, which is the preferred alternative, would use a geosynthetic clay laminate layer (GCLL) cover system over core materials in the east overburden pile and overburden pits. Alternative 1B would use a GCLL over the entire east overburden pile and overburden pits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would ensure economically viable development of phosphate resources and allow the lessee to exercise its right to develop those resources. Reduced infiltration of precipitation into the backfilled overburden and east overburden pile would reduce the concentration of selenium and constituents of particular concern in groundwater that discharges to the Blackfoot River to levels that would meet local water quality standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of 91 million bank cubic yards of overburden would disturb soils, increase erosion and sediment transport rates, and result in the loss of 99 acres of wildlife habitat and of 9.4 acres of wetlands. Mining would result in release of selenium and trace metals and groundwater quality would be potentially impacted by seepage from the proposed overburden piles and backfilled pits. Construction of facilities would have effects on topography and stability of the landscape. Surface disturbance would total 739 acres and 65 acres not reclaimed would represent long-term modification. Annual fugitive dust emissions from mining operations would be 138 tons per year. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, potential reduction in groundwater levels would be greater than that predicted under the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0265D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110071, 921 pages and maps, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 30 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-ID-320-2006-EIS-1553 KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Diversion Structures KW - Emissions KW - Erosion KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Phosphates KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Soils KW - Water Quality KW - Idaho KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131175?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 29 of 68] T2 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 873131156; 14827-1_0029 AB - PURPOSE: The mining of phosphate ore at the Blackfoot Bridge Mine, located 10 miles northeast of Soda Springs in Caribou County, Idaho is proposed. P4 Production, LLC (P4), a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto Company, Inc., submitted an initial mine and reclamation plan in November 2005 and a revised plan in October 2008. The revised plan proposes a new open pit phosphate mining operation on federal mineral leases that would include external overburden piles, a haul road, and a water management plan. Under the proposed action, phosphate ore would be mined and hauled eight miles to P4's Soda Springs elemental phosphorous plant for processing. No processing other than typical crushing and screening operations would occur at the mine site and all chemical processing activities would occur at the Soda Springs plant. The Blackfoot Bridge Mine ore reserve would be developed using an open pit mining method on a series of bench cuts, using a combination of in-pit retreating ramps and backfill ramps. The primary equipment for ore and overburden mining would be a combination of trucks, track-mounted excavators, bulldozers, and front-end loaders. A track-hoe excavator would also be used to maximize recovery of ore in the bottom of the pit. The project would be mined in a phased approach with mining and reclamation activities continuing for 17 years. Ore would be recovered from three mine pits beginning in Mid Pit, followed by the North Pit and South Pit. All overburden would either be backfilled into mined-out portions of the mine pits or placed in the external east overburden pile or northwest overburden pile. Facilities would include: 1) an ore stockpile and truck loading area; 2) an ore truck turnaround loop and equipment yard; 3) two water management ponds and other water control structures; 4) topsoil stockpiles; 5) sediment control dams; 6) roads; and 7) sediment control structures. A surface water diversion ditch would be constructed from the unnamed tributary to Fish Pond to the water management ponds. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, a layer of impermeable material would be constructed between the segregated Meade Peak overburden and the applied growth medium to eliminate potential effects of water infiltrating into the backfilled pits and external overburden piles. Alternative 1A, which is the preferred alternative, would use a geosynthetic clay laminate layer (GCLL) cover system over core materials in the east overburden pile and overburden pits. Alternative 1B would use a GCLL over the entire east overburden pile and overburden pits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would ensure economically viable development of phosphate resources and allow the lessee to exercise its right to develop those resources. Reduced infiltration of precipitation into the backfilled overburden and east overburden pile would reduce the concentration of selenium and constituents of particular concern in groundwater that discharges to the Blackfoot River to levels that would meet local water quality standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of 91 million bank cubic yards of overburden would disturb soils, increase erosion and sediment transport rates, and result in the loss of 99 acres of wildlife habitat and of 9.4 acres of wetlands. Mining would result in release of selenium and trace metals and groundwater quality would be potentially impacted by seepage from the proposed overburden piles and backfilled pits. Construction of facilities would have effects on topography and stability of the landscape. Surface disturbance would total 739 acres and 65 acres not reclaimed would represent long-term modification. Annual fugitive dust emissions from mining operations would be 138 tons per year. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, potential reduction in groundwater levels would be greater than that predicted under the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0265D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110071, 921 pages and maps, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 29 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-ID-320-2006-EIS-1553 KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Diversion Structures KW - Emissions KW - Erosion KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Phosphates KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Soils KW - Water Quality KW - Idaho KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131156?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 28 of 68] T2 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 873131145; 14827-1_0028 AB - PURPOSE: The mining of phosphate ore at the Blackfoot Bridge Mine, located 10 miles northeast of Soda Springs in Caribou County, Idaho is proposed. P4 Production, LLC (P4), a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto Company, Inc., submitted an initial mine and reclamation plan in November 2005 and a revised plan in October 2008. The revised plan proposes a new open pit phosphate mining operation on federal mineral leases that would include external overburden piles, a haul road, and a water management plan. Under the proposed action, phosphate ore would be mined and hauled eight miles to P4's Soda Springs elemental phosphorous plant for processing. No processing other than typical crushing and screening operations would occur at the mine site and all chemical processing activities would occur at the Soda Springs plant. The Blackfoot Bridge Mine ore reserve would be developed using an open pit mining method on a series of bench cuts, using a combination of in-pit retreating ramps and backfill ramps. The primary equipment for ore and overburden mining would be a combination of trucks, track-mounted excavators, bulldozers, and front-end loaders. A track-hoe excavator would also be used to maximize recovery of ore in the bottom of the pit. The project would be mined in a phased approach with mining and reclamation activities continuing for 17 years. Ore would be recovered from three mine pits beginning in Mid Pit, followed by the North Pit and South Pit. All overburden would either be backfilled into mined-out portions of the mine pits or placed in the external east overburden pile or northwest overburden pile. Facilities would include: 1) an ore stockpile and truck loading area; 2) an ore truck turnaround loop and equipment yard; 3) two water management ponds and other water control structures; 4) topsoil stockpiles; 5) sediment control dams; 6) roads; and 7) sediment control structures. A surface water diversion ditch would be constructed from the unnamed tributary to Fish Pond to the water management ponds. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, a layer of impermeable material would be constructed between the segregated Meade Peak overburden and the applied growth medium to eliminate potential effects of water infiltrating into the backfilled pits and external overburden piles. Alternative 1A, which is the preferred alternative, would use a geosynthetic clay laminate layer (GCLL) cover system over core materials in the east overburden pile and overburden pits. Alternative 1B would use a GCLL over the entire east overburden pile and overburden pits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would ensure economically viable development of phosphate resources and allow the lessee to exercise its right to develop those resources. Reduced infiltration of precipitation into the backfilled overburden and east overburden pile would reduce the concentration of selenium and constituents of particular concern in groundwater that discharges to the Blackfoot River to levels that would meet local water quality standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of 91 million bank cubic yards of overburden would disturb soils, increase erosion and sediment transport rates, and result in the loss of 99 acres of wildlife habitat and of 9.4 acres of wetlands. Mining would result in release of selenium and trace metals and groundwater quality would be potentially impacted by seepage from the proposed overburden piles and backfilled pits. Construction of facilities would have effects on topography and stability of the landscape. Surface disturbance would total 739 acres and 65 acres not reclaimed would represent long-term modification. Annual fugitive dust emissions from mining operations would be 138 tons per year. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, potential reduction in groundwater levels would be greater than that predicted under the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0265D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110071, 921 pages and maps, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 28 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-ID-320-2006-EIS-1553 KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Diversion Structures KW - Emissions KW - Erosion KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Phosphates KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Soils KW - Water Quality KW - Idaho KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131145?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 23 of 68] T2 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 873131137; 14827-1_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The mining of phosphate ore at the Blackfoot Bridge Mine, located 10 miles northeast of Soda Springs in Caribou County, Idaho is proposed. P4 Production, LLC (P4), a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto Company, Inc., submitted an initial mine and reclamation plan in November 2005 and a revised plan in October 2008. The revised plan proposes a new open pit phosphate mining operation on federal mineral leases that would include external overburden piles, a haul road, and a water management plan. Under the proposed action, phosphate ore would be mined and hauled eight miles to P4's Soda Springs elemental phosphorous plant for processing. No processing other than typical crushing and screening operations would occur at the mine site and all chemical processing activities would occur at the Soda Springs plant. The Blackfoot Bridge Mine ore reserve would be developed using an open pit mining method on a series of bench cuts, using a combination of in-pit retreating ramps and backfill ramps. The primary equipment for ore and overburden mining would be a combination of trucks, track-mounted excavators, bulldozers, and front-end loaders. A track-hoe excavator would also be used to maximize recovery of ore in the bottom of the pit. The project would be mined in a phased approach with mining and reclamation activities continuing for 17 years. Ore would be recovered from three mine pits beginning in Mid Pit, followed by the North Pit and South Pit. All overburden would either be backfilled into mined-out portions of the mine pits or placed in the external east overburden pile or northwest overburden pile. Facilities would include: 1) an ore stockpile and truck loading area; 2) an ore truck turnaround loop and equipment yard; 3) two water management ponds and other water control structures; 4) topsoil stockpiles; 5) sediment control dams; 6) roads; and 7) sediment control structures. A surface water diversion ditch would be constructed from the unnamed tributary to Fish Pond to the water management ponds. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, a layer of impermeable material would be constructed between the segregated Meade Peak overburden and the applied growth medium to eliminate potential effects of water infiltrating into the backfilled pits and external overburden piles. Alternative 1A, which is the preferred alternative, would use a geosynthetic clay laminate layer (GCLL) cover system over core materials in the east overburden pile and overburden pits. Alternative 1B would use a GCLL over the entire east overburden pile and overburden pits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would ensure economically viable development of phosphate resources and allow the lessee to exercise its right to develop those resources. Reduced infiltration of precipitation into the backfilled overburden and east overburden pile would reduce the concentration of selenium and constituents of particular concern in groundwater that discharges to the Blackfoot River to levels that would meet local water quality standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of 91 million bank cubic yards of overburden would disturb soils, increase erosion and sediment transport rates, and result in the loss of 99 acres of wildlife habitat and of 9.4 acres of wetlands. Mining would result in release of selenium and trace metals and groundwater quality would be potentially impacted by seepage from the proposed overburden piles and backfilled pits. Construction of facilities would have effects on topography and stability of the landscape. Surface disturbance would total 739 acres and 65 acres not reclaimed would represent long-term modification. Annual fugitive dust emissions from mining operations would be 138 tons per year. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, potential reduction in groundwater levels would be greater than that predicted under the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0265D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110071, 921 pages and maps, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 23 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-ID-320-2006-EIS-1553 KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Diversion Structures KW - Emissions KW - Erosion KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Phosphates KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Soils KW - Water Quality KW - Idaho KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131137?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 22 of 68] T2 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 873131131; 14827-1_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The mining of phosphate ore at the Blackfoot Bridge Mine, located 10 miles northeast of Soda Springs in Caribou County, Idaho is proposed. P4 Production, LLC (P4), a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto Company, Inc., submitted an initial mine and reclamation plan in November 2005 and a revised plan in October 2008. The revised plan proposes a new open pit phosphate mining operation on federal mineral leases that would include external overburden piles, a haul road, and a water management plan. Under the proposed action, phosphate ore would be mined and hauled eight miles to P4's Soda Springs elemental phosphorous plant for processing. No processing other than typical crushing and screening operations would occur at the mine site and all chemical processing activities would occur at the Soda Springs plant. The Blackfoot Bridge Mine ore reserve would be developed using an open pit mining method on a series of bench cuts, using a combination of in-pit retreating ramps and backfill ramps. The primary equipment for ore and overburden mining would be a combination of trucks, track-mounted excavators, bulldozers, and front-end loaders. A track-hoe excavator would also be used to maximize recovery of ore in the bottom of the pit. The project would be mined in a phased approach with mining and reclamation activities continuing for 17 years. Ore would be recovered from three mine pits beginning in Mid Pit, followed by the North Pit and South Pit. All overburden would either be backfilled into mined-out portions of the mine pits or placed in the external east overburden pile or northwest overburden pile. Facilities would include: 1) an ore stockpile and truck loading area; 2) an ore truck turnaround loop and equipment yard; 3) two water management ponds and other water control structures; 4) topsoil stockpiles; 5) sediment control dams; 6) roads; and 7) sediment control structures. A surface water diversion ditch would be constructed from the unnamed tributary to Fish Pond to the water management ponds. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, a layer of impermeable material would be constructed between the segregated Meade Peak overburden and the applied growth medium to eliminate potential effects of water infiltrating into the backfilled pits and external overburden piles. Alternative 1A, which is the preferred alternative, would use a geosynthetic clay laminate layer (GCLL) cover system over core materials in the east overburden pile and overburden pits. Alternative 1B would use a GCLL over the entire east overburden pile and overburden pits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would ensure economically viable development of phosphate resources and allow the lessee to exercise its right to develop those resources. Reduced infiltration of precipitation into the backfilled overburden and east overburden pile would reduce the concentration of selenium and constituents of particular concern in groundwater that discharges to the Blackfoot River to levels that would meet local water quality standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of 91 million bank cubic yards of overburden would disturb soils, increase erosion and sediment transport rates, and result in the loss of 99 acres of wildlife habitat and of 9.4 acres of wetlands. Mining would result in release of selenium and trace metals and groundwater quality would be potentially impacted by seepage from the proposed overburden piles and backfilled pits. Construction of facilities would have effects on topography and stability of the landscape. Surface disturbance would total 739 acres and 65 acres not reclaimed would represent long-term modification. Annual fugitive dust emissions from mining operations would be 138 tons per year. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, potential reduction in groundwater levels would be greater than that predicted under the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0265D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110071, 921 pages and maps, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 22 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-ID-320-2006-EIS-1553 KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Diversion Structures KW - Emissions KW - Erosion KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Phosphates KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Soils KW - Water Quality KW - Idaho KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131131?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 21 of 68] T2 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 873131116; 14827-1_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The mining of phosphate ore at the Blackfoot Bridge Mine, located 10 miles northeast of Soda Springs in Caribou County, Idaho is proposed. P4 Production, LLC (P4), a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto Company, Inc., submitted an initial mine and reclamation plan in November 2005 and a revised plan in October 2008. The revised plan proposes a new open pit phosphate mining operation on federal mineral leases that would include external overburden piles, a haul road, and a water management plan. Under the proposed action, phosphate ore would be mined and hauled eight miles to P4's Soda Springs elemental phosphorous plant for processing. No processing other than typical crushing and screening operations would occur at the mine site and all chemical processing activities would occur at the Soda Springs plant. The Blackfoot Bridge Mine ore reserve would be developed using an open pit mining method on a series of bench cuts, using a combination of in-pit retreating ramps and backfill ramps. The primary equipment for ore and overburden mining would be a combination of trucks, track-mounted excavators, bulldozers, and front-end loaders. A track-hoe excavator would also be used to maximize recovery of ore in the bottom of the pit. The project would be mined in a phased approach with mining and reclamation activities continuing for 17 years. Ore would be recovered from three mine pits beginning in Mid Pit, followed by the North Pit and South Pit. All overburden would either be backfilled into mined-out portions of the mine pits or placed in the external east overburden pile or northwest overburden pile. Facilities would include: 1) an ore stockpile and truck loading area; 2) an ore truck turnaround loop and equipment yard; 3) two water management ponds and other water control structures; 4) topsoil stockpiles; 5) sediment control dams; 6) roads; and 7) sediment control structures. A surface water diversion ditch would be constructed from the unnamed tributary to Fish Pond to the water management ponds. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, a layer of impermeable material would be constructed between the segregated Meade Peak overburden and the applied growth medium to eliminate potential effects of water infiltrating into the backfilled pits and external overburden piles. Alternative 1A, which is the preferred alternative, would use a geosynthetic clay laminate layer (GCLL) cover system over core materials in the east overburden pile and overburden pits. Alternative 1B would use a GCLL over the entire east overburden pile and overburden pits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would ensure economically viable development of phosphate resources and allow the lessee to exercise its right to develop those resources. Reduced infiltration of precipitation into the backfilled overburden and east overburden pile would reduce the concentration of selenium and constituents of particular concern in groundwater that discharges to the Blackfoot River to levels that would meet local water quality standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of 91 million bank cubic yards of overburden would disturb soils, increase erosion and sediment transport rates, and result in the loss of 99 acres of wildlife habitat and of 9.4 acres of wetlands. Mining would result in release of selenium and trace metals and groundwater quality would be potentially impacted by seepage from the proposed overburden piles and backfilled pits. Construction of facilities would have effects on topography and stability of the landscape. Surface disturbance would total 739 acres and 65 acres not reclaimed would represent long-term modification. Annual fugitive dust emissions from mining operations would be 138 tons per year. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, potential reduction in groundwater levels would be greater than that predicted under the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0265D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110071, 921 pages and maps, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 21 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-ID-320-2006-EIS-1553 KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Diversion Structures KW - Emissions KW - Erosion KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Phosphates KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Soils KW - Water Quality KW - Idaho KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131116?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 20 of 68] T2 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 873131104; 14827-1_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The mining of phosphate ore at the Blackfoot Bridge Mine, located 10 miles northeast of Soda Springs in Caribou County, Idaho is proposed. P4 Production, LLC (P4), a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto Company, Inc., submitted an initial mine and reclamation plan in November 2005 and a revised plan in October 2008. The revised plan proposes a new open pit phosphate mining operation on federal mineral leases that would include external overburden piles, a haul road, and a water management plan. Under the proposed action, phosphate ore would be mined and hauled eight miles to P4's Soda Springs elemental phosphorous plant for processing. No processing other than typical crushing and screening operations would occur at the mine site and all chemical processing activities would occur at the Soda Springs plant. The Blackfoot Bridge Mine ore reserve would be developed using an open pit mining method on a series of bench cuts, using a combination of in-pit retreating ramps and backfill ramps. The primary equipment for ore and overburden mining would be a combination of trucks, track-mounted excavators, bulldozers, and front-end loaders. A track-hoe excavator would also be used to maximize recovery of ore in the bottom of the pit. The project would be mined in a phased approach with mining and reclamation activities continuing for 17 years. Ore would be recovered from three mine pits beginning in Mid Pit, followed by the North Pit and South Pit. All overburden would either be backfilled into mined-out portions of the mine pits or placed in the external east overburden pile or northwest overburden pile. Facilities would include: 1) an ore stockpile and truck loading area; 2) an ore truck turnaround loop and equipment yard; 3) two water management ponds and other water control structures; 4) topsoil stockpiles; 5) sediment control dams; 6) roads; and 7) sediment control structures. A surface water diversion ditch would be constructed from the unnamed tributary to Fish Pond to the water management ponds. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, a layer of impermeable material would be constructed between the segregated Meade Peak overburden and the applied growth medium to eliminate potential effects of water infiltrating into the backfilled pits and external overburden piles. Alternative 1A, which is the preferred alternative, would use a geosynthetic clay laminate layer (GCLL) cover system over core materials in the east overburden pile and overburden pits. Alternative 1B would use a GCLL over the entire east overburden pile and overburden pits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would ensure economically viable development of phosphate resources and allow the lessee to exercise its right to develop those resources. Reduced infiltration of precipitation into the backfilled overburden and east overburden pile would reduce the concentration of selenium and constituents of particular concern in groundwater that discharges to the Blackfoot River to levels that would meet local water quality standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of 91 million bank cubic yards of overburden would disturb soils, increase erosion and sediment transport rates, and result in the loss of 99 acres of wildlife habitat and of 9.4 acres of wetlands. Mining would result in release of selenium and trace metals and groundwater quality would be potentially impacted by seepage from the proposed overburden piles and backfilled pits. Construction of facilities would have effects on topography and stability of the landscape. Surface disturbance would total 739 acres and 65 acres not reclaimed would represent long-term modification. Annual fugitive dust emissions from mining operations would be 138 tons per year. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, potential reduction in groundwater levels would be greater than that predicted under the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0265D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110071, 921 pages and maps, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 20 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-ID-320-2006-EIS-1553 KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Diversion Structures KW - Emissions KW - Erosion KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Phosphates KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Soils KW - Water Quality KW - Idaho KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131104?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 2 of 68] T2 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 873131088; 14827-1_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The mining of phosphate ore at the Blackfoot Bridge Mine, located 10 miles northeast of Soda Springs in Caribou County, Idaho is proposed. P4 Production, LLC (P4), a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto Company, Inc., submitted an initial mine and reclamation plan in November 2005 and a revised plan in October 2008. The revised plan proposes a new open pit phosphate mining operation on federal mineral leases that would include external overburden piles, a haul road, and a water management plan. Under the proposed action, phosphate ore would be mined and hauled eight miles to P4's Soda Springs elemental phosphorous plant for processing. No processing other than typical crushing and screening operations would occur at the mine site and all chemical processing activities would occur at the Soda Springs plant. The Blackfoot Bridge Mine ore reserve would be developed using an open pit mining method on a series of bench cuts, using a combination of in-pit retreating ramps and backfill ramps. The primary equipment for ore and overburden mining would be a combination of trucks, track-mounted excavators, bulldozers, and front-end loaders. A track-hoe excavator would also be used to maximize recovery of ore in the bottom of the pit. The project would be mined in a phased approach with mining and reclamation activities continuing for 17 years. Ore would be recovered from three mine pits beginning in Mid Pit, followed by the North Pit and South Pit. All overburden would either be backfilled into mined-out portions of the mine pits or placed in the external east overburden pile or northwest overburden pile. Facilities would include: 1) an ore stockpile and truck loading area; 2) an ore truck turnaround loop and equipment yard; 3) two water management ponds and other water control structures; 4) topsoil stockpiles; 5) sediment control dams; 6) roads; and 7) sediment control structures. A surface water diversion ditch would be constructed from the unnamed tributary to Fish Pond to the water management ponds. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, a layer of impermeable material would be constructed between the segregated Meade Peak overburden and the applied growth medium to eliminate potential effects of water infiltrating into the backfilled pits and external overburden piles. Alternative 1A, which is the preferred alternative, would use a geosynthetic clay laminate layer (GCLL) cover system over core materials in the east overburden pile and overburden pits. Alternative 1B would use a GCLL over the entire east overburden pile and overburden pits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would ensure economically viable development of phosphate resources and allow the lessee to exercise its right to develop those resources. Reduced infiltration of precipitation into the backfilled overburden and east overburden pile would reduce the concentration of selenium and constituents of particular concern in groundwater that discharges to the Blackfoot River to levels that would meet local water quality standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of 91 million bank cubic yards of overburden would disturb soils, increase erosion and sediment transport rates, and result in the loss of 99 acres of wildlife habitat and of 9.4 acres of wetlands. Mining would result in release of selenium and trace metals and groundwater quality would be potentially impacted by seepage from the proposed overburden piles and backfilled pits. Construction of facilities would have effects on topography and stability of the landscape. Surface disturbance would total 739 acres and 65 acres not reclaimed would represent long-term modification. Annual fugitive dust emissions from mining operations would be 138 tons per year. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, potential reduction in groundwater levels would be greater than that predicted under the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0265D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110071, 921 pages and maps, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-ID-320-2006-EIS-1553 KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Diversion Structures KW - Emissions KW - Erosion KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Phosphates KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Soils KW - Water Quality KW - Idaho KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131088?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 1 of 68] T2 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 873131073; 14827-1_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The mining of phosphate ore at the Blackfoot Bridge Mine, located 10 miles northeast of Soda Springs in Caribou County, Idaho is proposed. P4 Production, LLC (P4), a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto Company, Inc., submitted an initial mine and reclamation plan in November 2005 and a revised plan in October 2008. The revised plan proposes a new open pit phosphate mining operation on federal mineral leases that would include external overburden piles, a haul road, and a water management plan. Under the proposed action, phosphate ore would be mined and hauled eight miles to P4's Soda Springs elemental phosphorous plant for processing. No processing other than typical crushing and screening operations would occur at the mine site and all chemical processing activities would occur at the Soda Springs plant. The Blackfoot Bridge Mine ore reserve would be developed using an open pit mining method on a series of bench cuts, using a combination of in-pit retreating ramps and backfill ramps. The primary equipment for ore and overburden mining would be a combination of trucks, track-mounted excavators, bulldozers, and front-end loaders. A track-hoe excavator would also be used to maximize recovery of ore in the bottom of the pit. The project would be mined in a phased approach with mining and reclamation activities continuing for 17 years. Ore would be recovered from three mine pits beginning in Mid Pit, followed by the North Pit and South Pit. All overburden would either be backfilled into mined-out portions of the mine pits or placed in the external east overburden pile or northwest overburden pile. Facilities would include: 1) an ore stockpile and truck loading area; 2) an ore truck turnaround loop and equipment yard; 3) two water management ponds and other water control structures; 4) topsoil stockpiles; 5) sediment control dams; 6) roads; and 7) sediment control structures. A surface water diversion ditch would be constructed from the unnamed tributary to Fish Pond to the water management ponds. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, a layer of impermeable material would be constructed between the segregated Meade Peak overburden and the applied growth medium to eliminate potential effects of water infiltrating into the backfilled pits and external overburden piles. Alternative 1A, which is the preferred alternative, would use a geosynthetic clay laminate layer (GCLL) cover system over core materials in the east overburden pile and overburden pits. Alternative 1B would use a GCLL over the entire east overburden pile and overburden pits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would ensure economically viable development of phosphate resources and allow the lessee to exercise its right to develop those resources. Reduced infiltration of precipitation into the backfilled overburden and east overburden pile would reduce the concentration of selenium and constituents of particular concern in groundwater that discharges to the Blackfoot River to levels that would meet local water quality standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of 91 million bank cubic yards of overburden would disturb soils, increase erosion and sediment transport rates, and result in the loss of 99 acres of wildlife habitat and of 9.4 acres of wetlands. Mining would result in release of selenium and trace metals and groundwater quality would be potentially impacted by seepage from the proposed overburden piles and backfilled pits. Construction of facilities would have effects on topography and stability of the landscape. Surface disturbance would total 739 acres and 65 acres not reclaimed would represent long-term modification. Annual fugitive dust emissions from mining operations would be 138 tons per year. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, potential reduction in groundwater levels would be greater than that predicted under the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0265D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110071, 921 pages and maps, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-ID-320-2006-EIS-1553 KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Diversion Structures KW - Emissions KW - Erosion KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Phosphates KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Soils KW - Water Quality KW - Idaho KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131073?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR, GARFIELD, EAGLE, SUMMIT, CLEAR CREEK AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 39 of 39] T2 - I-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR, GARFIELD, EAGLE, SUMMIT, CLEAR CREEK AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 873130757; 14829-3_0039 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements along the 144-mile-long Interstate 70 (I-70) Mountain Corridor between Glenwood Springs and State Route 470 (C-470), Garfield, Eagle, Summit, Clear Creek and Jefferson counties, Colorado are proposed. The I-70 highway is the only east-west interstate to cross Colorado, directly serves more than 20 communities and a number of major ski resorts, provides access to the White River National Forest and the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests, and is an important freight corridor. Population growth in the Corridor and in the Denver metropolitan area has increased traffic volumes and recreational travelers currently experience substantial delays on weekends and holidays on the eastern side of the corridor while the western side experiences work trip delays during the week. This project began in 2000 and a revised programmatic draft EIS was issued in 2004. Twenty-one action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this first tier programmatic final EIS. The preferred alternative consists of near-term and general long-term improvements for the Corridor to meet the travel demand for 2050 and address immediate Corridor needs. To address future uncertainties, trigger points and stakeholder involvement would be used to reassess needs and to determine the most appropriate transportation improvements to meet future demand. The preferred alternative would implement a multimodal solution and include non-infrastructure related components, an advanced guideway system, and highway improvements. A specific advanced guideway system technology would be determined in subsequent study or a Tier 2 process and would be deployed to provide transit service from the Eagle County Regional Airport to C-470, a distance of 118 miles. It would be a fully elevated transit system on two tracks aligned to the north, south, or in the median of I-70. The system would connect to the regional transportation district network in Jefferson County and local and regional transit services at most of the 15 proposed transit stations along the route. The advanced guideway system would require new tunnel bores at both the Eisenhower-Johnson Memorial Tunnels and the Twin Tunnels. The six-lane highway widening improvements included with the preferred alternative maximum program have both 55 miles per hour (mph) and 65 mph design options. The 55 mph option would use the existing I-70 alignment. The 65 mph design would require additional tunnels at Dowd Canyon, Hidden Valley, and Floyd Hill. At Dowd Canyon, two tunnels would be required for eastbound and westbound traffic. The preferred alternative identifies a minimum and maximum range of multi-modal improvements ranging in cost from $16.1 billion to $20.2 billion estimated in year of expenditure dollars and assuming the mid year of construction for the whole alternative is 2025. The 21 action alternatives evaluated in this document range in cost from $1.9 billion to $20.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Improvements would increase capacity, improve accessibility and mobility, and decrease congestion for travel demand to destinations along the I-70 Mountain Corridor as well as for interstate travel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Automobile and truck traffic would continue to degrade air quality, displace key wildlife habitat, and impede and endanger wildlife movements. Contamination from vehicles which then is washed into nearby streams would impact water quality. Under the preferred alternative, the increase in runoff would range from 16 percent to 24 percent. Removal, modification or disturbance of habitat for aquatic species would occur. Historic resources that could be affected include several nationally significant properties, including the Georgetown-Silver Plume National Historic Landmark District and as many as 75 different historic properties. Geologic hazards would need careful examination during Tier 2 processes to locate and design improvements to minimize effects. The preferred alternative would affect between 65 and 90 recreation sites. Transportation energy consumption would increase significantly, particularly under modal options involving highways. 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.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the original and revised draft EISs, see 05-0396D, Volume 29, Number 3 and 10-0498D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110073, Final EIS--527 pages, Appendices--855 pages, Technical Reports--6 volumes, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 39 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cost Assessments KW - Energy Consumption KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Colorado 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 - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130757?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-70+MOUNTAIN+CORRIDOR%2C+GARFIELD%2C+EAGLE%2C+SUMMIT%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-70+MOUNTAIN+CORRIDOR%2C+GARFIELD%2C+EAGLE%2C+SUMMIT%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR, GARFIELD, EAGLE, SUMMIT, CLEAR CREEK AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 38 of 39] T2 - I-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR, GARFIELD, EAGLE, SUMMIT, CLEAR CREEK AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 873130752; 14829-3_0038 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements along the 144-mile-long Interstate 70 (I-70) Mountain Corridor between Glenwood Springs and State Route 470 (C-470), Garfield, Eagle, Summit, Clear Creek and Jefferson counties, Colorado are proposed. The I-70 highway is the only east-west interstate to cross Colorado, directly serves more than 20 communities and a number of major ski resorts, provides access to the White River National Forest and the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests, and is an important freight corridor. Population growth in the Corridor and in the Denver metropolitan area has increased traffic volumes and recreational travelers currently experience substantial delays on weekends and holidays on the eastern side of the corridor while the western side experiences work trip delays during the week. This project began in 2000 and a revised programmatic draft EIS was issued in 2004. Twenty-one action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this first tier programmatic final EIS. The preferred alternative consists of near-term and general long-term improvements for the Corridor to meet the travel demand for 2050 and address immediate Corridor needs. To address future uncertainties, trigger points and stakeholder involvement would be used to reassess needs and to determine the most appropriate transportation improvements to meet future demand. The preferred alternative would implement a multimodal solution and include non-infrastructure related components, an advanced guideway system, and highway improvements. A specific advanced guideway system technology would be determined in subsequent study or a Tier 2 process and would be deployed to provide transit service from the Eagle County Regional Airport to C-470, a distance of 118 miles. It would be a fully elevated transit system on two tracks aligned to the north, south, or in the median of I-70. The system would connect to the regional transportation district network in Jefferson County and local and regional transit services at most of the 15 proposed transit stations along the route. The advanced guideway system would require new tunnel bores at both the Eisenhower-Johnson Memorial Tunnels and the Twin Tunnels. The six-lane highway widening improvements included with the preferred alternative maximum program have both 55 miles per hour (mph) and 65 mph design options. The 55 mph option would use the existing I-70 alignment. The 65 mph design would require additional tunnels at Dowd Canyon, Hidden Valley, and Floyd Hill. At Dowd Canyon, two tunnels would be required for eastbound and westbound traffic. The preferred alternative identifies a minimum and maximum range of multi-modal improvements ranging in cost from $16.1 billion to $20.2 billion estimated in year of expenditure dollars and assuming the mid year of construction for the whole alternative is 2025. The 21 action alternatives evaluated in this document range in cost from $1.9 billion to $20.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Improvements would increase capacity, improve accessibility and mobility, and decrease congestion for travel demand to destinations along the I-70 Mountain Corridor as well as for interstate travel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Automobile and truck traffic would continue to degrade air quality, displace key wildlife habitat, and impede and endanger wildlife movements. Contamination from vehicles which then is washed into nearby streams would impact water quality. Under the preferred alternative, the increase in runoff would range from 16 percent to 24 percent. Removal, modification or disturbance of habitat for aquatic species would occur. Historic resources that could be affected include several nationally significant properties, including the Georgetown-Silver Plume National Historic Landmark District and as many as 75 different historic properties. Geologic hazards would need careful examination during Tier 2 processes to locate and design improvements to minimize effects. The preferred alternative would affect between 65 and 90 recreation sites. Transportation energy consumption would increase significantly, particularly under modal options involving highways. 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.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the original and revised draft EISs, see 05-0396D, Volume 29, Number 3 and 10-0498D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110073, Final EIS--527 pages, Appendices--855 pages, Technical Reports--6 volumes, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 38 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cost Assessments KW - Energy Consumption KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Colorado 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 - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130752?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-70+MOUNTAIN+CORRIDOR%2C+GARFIELD%2C+EAGLE%2C+SUMMIT%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-70+MOUNTAIN+CORRIDOR%2C+GARFIELD%2C+EAGLE%2C+SUMMIT%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR, GARFIELD, EAGLE, SUMMIT, CLEAR CREEK AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 37 of 39] T2 - I-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR, GARFIELD, EAGLE, SUMMIT, CLEAR CREEK AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 873130743; 14829-3_0037 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements along the 144-mile-long Interstate 70 (I-70) Mountain Corridor between Glenwood Springs and State Route 470 (C-470), Garfield, Eagle, Summit, Clear Creek and Jefferson counties, Colorado are proposed. The I-70 highway is the only east-west interstate to cross Colorado, directly serves more than 20 communities and a number of major ski resorts, provides access to the White River National Forest and the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests, and is an important freight corridor. Population growth in the Corridor and in the Denver metropolitan area has increased traffic volumes and recreational travelers currently experience substantial delays on weekends and holidays on the eastern side of the corridor while the western side experiences work trip delays during the week. This project began in 2000 and a revised programmatic draft EIS was issued in 2004. Twenty-one action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this first tier programmatic final EIS. The preferred alternative consists of near-term and general long-term improvements for the Corridor to meet the travel demand for 2050 and address immediate Corridor needs. To address future uncertainties, trigger points and stakeholder involvement would be used to reassess needs and to determine the most appropriate transportation improvements to meet future demand. The preferred alternative would implement a multimodal solution and include non-infrastructure related components, an advanced guideway system, and highway improvements. A specific advanced guideway system technology would be determined in subsequent study or a Tier 2 process and would be deployed to provide transit service from the Eagle County Regional Airport to C-470, a distance of 118 miles. It would be a fully elevated transit system on two tracks aligned to the north, south, or in the median of I-70. The system would connect to the regional transportation district network in Jefferson County and local and regional transit services at most of the 15 proposed transit stations along the route. The advanced guideway system would require new tunnel bores at both the Eisenhower-Johnson Memorial Tunnels and the Twin Tunnels. The six-lane highway widening improvements included with the preferred alternative maximum program have both 55 miles per hour (mph) and 65 mph design options. The 55 mph option would use the existing I-70 alignment. The 65 mph design would require additional tunnels at Dowd Canyon, Hidden Valley, and Floyd Hill. At Dowd Canyon, two tunnels would be required for eastbound and westbound traffic. The preferred alternative identifies a minimum and maximum range of multi-modal improvements ranging in cost from $16.1 billion to $20.2 billion estimated in year of expenditure dollars and assuming the mid year of construction for the whole alternative is 2025. The 21 action alternatives evaluated in this document range in cost from $1.9 billion to $20.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Improvements would increase capacity, improve accessibility and mobility, and decrease congestion for travel demand to destinations along the I-70 Mountain Corridor as well as for interstate travel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Automobile and truck traffic would continue to degrade air quality, displace key wildlife habitat, and impede and endanger wildlife movements. Contamination from vehicles which then is washed into nearby streams would impact water quality. Under the preferred alternative, the increase in runoff would range from 16 percent to 24 percent. Removal, modification or disturbance of habitat for aquatic species would occur. Historic resources that could be affected include several nationally significant properties, including the Georgetown-Silver Plume National Historic Landmark District and as many as 75 different historic properties. Geologic hazards would need careful examination during Tier 2 processes to locate and design improvements to minimize effects. The preferred alternative would affect between 65 and 90 recreation sites. Transportation energy consumption would increase significantly, particularly under modal options involving highways. 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.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the original and revised draft EISs, see 05-0396D, Volume 29, Number 3 and 10-0498D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110073, Final EIS--527 pages, Appendices--855 pages, Technical Reports--6 volumes, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 37 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cost Assessments KW - Energy Consumption KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Colorado 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 - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130743?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-70+MOUNTAIN+CORRIDOR%2C+GARFIELD%2C+EAGLE%2C+SUMMIT%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-70+MOUNTAIN+CORRIDOR%2C+GARFIELD%2C+EAGLE%2C+SUMMIT%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR, GARFIELD, EAGLE, SUMMIT, CLEAR CREEK AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 36 of 39] T2 - I-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR, GARFIELD, EAGLE, SUMMIT, CLEAR CREEK AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 873130738; 14829-3_0036 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements along the 144-mile-long Interstate 70 (I-70) Mountain Corridor between Glenwood Springs and State Route 470 (C-470), Garfield, Eagle, Summit, Clear Creek and Jefferson counties, Colorado are proposed. The I-70 highway is the only east-west interstate to cross Colorado, directly serves more than 20 communities and a number of major ski resorts, provides access to the White River National Forest and the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests, and is an important freight corridor. Population growth in the Corridor and in the Denver metropolitan area has increased traffic volumes and recreational travelers currently experience substantial delays on weekends and holidays on the eastern side of the corridor while the western side experiences work trip delays during the week. This project began in 2000 and a revised programmatic draft EIS was issued in 2004. Twenty-one action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this first tier programmatic final EIS. The preferred alternative consists of near-term and general long-term improvements for the Corridor to meet the travel demand for 2050 and address immediate Corridor needs. To address future uncertainties, trigger points and stakeholder involvement would be used to reassess needs and to determine the most appropriate transportation improvements to meet future demand. The preferred alternative would implement a multimodal solution and include non-infrastructure related components, an advanced guideway system, and highway improvements. A specific advanced guideway system technology would be determined in subsequent study or a Tier 2 process and would be deployed to provide transit service from the Eagle County Regional Airport to C-470, a distance of 118 miles. It would be a fully elevated transit system on two tracks aligned to the north, south, or in the median of I-70. The system would connect to the regional transportation district network in Jefferson County and local and regional transit services at most of the 15 proposed transit stations along the route. The advanced guideway system would require new tunnel bores at both the Eisenhower-Johnson Memorial Tunnels and the Twin Tunnels. The six-lane highway widening improvements included with the preferred alternative maximum program have both 55 miles per hour (mph) and 65 mph design options. The 55 mph option would use the existing I-70 alignment. The 65 mph design would require additional tunnels at Dowd Canyon, Hidden Valley, and Floyd Hill. At Dowd Canyon, two tunnels would be required for eastbound and westbound traffic. The preferred alternative identifies a minimum and maximum range of multi-modal improvements ranging in cost from $16.1 billion to $20.2 billion estimated in year of expenditure dollars and assuming the mid year of construction for the whole alternative is 2025. The 21 action alternatives evaluated in this document range in cost from $1.9 billion to $20.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Improvements would increase capacity, improve accessibility and mobility, and decrease congestion for travel demand to destinations along the I-70 Mountain Corridor as well as for interstate travel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Automobile and truck traffic would continue to degrade air quality, displace key wildlife habitat, and impede and endanger wildlife movements. Contamination from vehicles which then is washed into nearby streams would impact water quality. Under the preferred alternative, the increase in runoff would range from 16 percent to 24 percent. Removal, modification or disturbance of habitat for aquatic species would occur. Historic resources that could be affected include several nationally significant properties, including the Georgetown-Silver Plume National Historic Landmark District and as many as 75 different historic properties. Geologic hazards would need careful examination during Tier 2 processes to locate and design improvements to minimize effects. The preferred alternative would affect between 65 and 90 recreation sites. Transportation energy consumption would increase significantly, particularly under modal options involving highways. 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.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the original and revised draft EISs, see 05-0396D, Volume 29, Number 3 and 10-0498D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110073, Final EIS--527 pages, Appendices--855 pages, Technical Reports--6 volumes, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 36 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cost Assessments KW - Energy Consumption KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Colorado 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 - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130738?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-70+MOUNTAIN+CORRIDOR%2C+GARFIELD%2C+EAGLE%2C+SUMMIT%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-70+MOUNTAIN+CORRIDOR%2C+GARFIELD%2C+EAGLE%2C+SUMMIT%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR, GARFIELD, EAGLE, SUMMIT, CLEAR CREEK AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 35 of 39] T2 - I-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR, GARFIELD, EAGLE, SUMMIT, CLEAR CREEK AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 873130728; 14829-3_0035 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements along the 144-mile-long Interstate 70 (I-70) Mountain Corridor between Glenwood Springs and State Route 470 (C-470), Garfield, Eagle, Summit, Clear Creek and Jefferson counties, Colorado are proposed. The I-70 highway is the only east-west interstate to cross Colorado, directly serves more than 20 communities and a number of major ski resorts, provides access to the White River National Forest and the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests, and is an important freight corridor. Population growth in the Corridor and in the Denver metropolitan area has increased traffic volumes and recreational travelers currently experience substantial delays on weekends and holidays on the eastern side of the corridor while the western side experiences work trip delays during the week. This project began in 2000 and a revised programmatic draft EIS was issued in 2004. Twenty-one action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this first tier programmatic final EIS. The preferred alternative consists of near-term and general long-term improvements for the Corridor to meet the travel demand for 2050 and address immediate Corridor needs. To address future uncertainties, trigger points and stakeholder involvement would be used to reassess needs and to determine the most appropriate transportation improvements to meet future demand. The preferred alternative would implement a multimodal solution and include non-infrastructure related components, an advanced guideway system, and highway improvements. A specific advanced guideway system technology would be determined in subsequent study or a Tier 2 process and would be deployed to provide transit service from the Eagle County Regional Airport to C-470, a distance of 118 miles. It would be a fully elevated transit system on two tracks aligned to the north, south, or in the median of I-70. The system would connect to the regional transportation district network in Jefferson County and local and regional transit services at most of the 15 proposed transit stations along the route. The advanced guideway system would require new tunnel bores at both the Eisenhower-Johnson Memorial Tunnels and the Twin Tunnels. The six-lane highway widening improvements included with the preferred alternative maximum program have both 55 miles per hour (mph) and 65 mph design options. The 55 mph option would use the existing I-70 alignment. The 65 mph design would require additional tunnels at Dowd Canyon, Hidden Valley, and Floyd Hill. At Dowd Canyon, two tunnels would be required for eastbound and westbound traffic. The preferred alternative identifies a minimum and maximum range of multi-modal improvements ranging in cost from $16.1 billion to $20.2 billion estimated in year of expenditure dollars and assuming the mid year of construction for the whole alternative is 2025. The 21 action alternatives evaluated in this document range in cost from $1.9 billion to $20.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Improvements would increase capacity, improve accessibility and mobility, and decrease congestion for travel demand to destinations along the I-70 Mountain Corridor as well as for interstate travel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Automobile and truck traffic would continue to degrade air quality, displace key wildlife habitat, and impede and endanger wildlife movements. Contamination from vehicles which then is washed into nearby streams would impact water quality. Under the preferred alternative, the increase in runoff would range from 16 percent to 24 percent. Removal, modification or disturbance of habitat for aquatic species would occur. Historic resources that could be affected include several nationally significant properties, including the Georgetown-Silver Plume National Historic Landmark District and as many as 75 different historic properties. Geologic hazards would need careful examination during Tier 2 processes to locate and design improvements to minimize effects. The preferred alternative would affect between 65 and 90 recreation sites. Transportation energy consumption would increase significantly, particularly under modal options involving highways. 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.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the original and revised draft EISs, see 05-0396D, Volume 29, Number 3 and 10-0498D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110073, Final EIS--527 pages, Appendices--855 pages, Technical Reports--6 volumes, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 35 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cost Assessments KW - Energy Consumption KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Colorado 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 - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130728?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-70+MOUNTAIN+CORRIDOR%2C+GARFIELD%2C+EAGLE%2C+SUMMIT%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-70+MOUNTAIN+CORRIDOR%2C+GARFIELD%2C+EAGLE%2C+SUMMIT%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR, GARFIELD, EAGLE, SUMMIT, CLEAR CREEK AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 34 of 39] T2 - I-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR, GARFIELD, EAGLE, SUMMIT, CLEAR CREEK AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 873130719; 14829-3_0034 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements along the 144-mile-long Interstate 70 (I-70) Mountain Corridor between Glenwood Springs and State Route 470 (C-470), Garfield, Eagle, Summit, Clear Creek and Jefferson counties, Colorado are proposed. The I-70 highway is the only east-west interstate to cross Colorado, directly serves more than 20 communities and a number of major ski resorts, provides access to the White River National Forest and the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests, and is an important freight corridor. Population growth in the Corridor and in the Denver metropolitan area has increased traffic volumes and recreational travelers currently experience substantial delays on weekends and holidays on the eastern side of the corridor while the western side experiences work trip delays during the week. This project began in 2000 and a revised programmatic draft EIS was issued in 2004. Twenty-one action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this first tier programmatic final EIS. The preferred alternative consists of near-term and general long-term improvements for the Corridor to meet the travel demand for 2050 and address immediate Corridor needs. To address future uncertainties, trigger points and stakeholder involvement would be used to reassess needs and to determine the most appropriate transportation improvements to meet future demand. The preferred alternative would implement a multimodal solution and include non-infrastructure related components, an advanced guideway system, and highway improvements. A specific advanced guideway system technology would be determined in subsequent study or a Tier 2 process and would be deployed to provide transit service from the Eagle County Regional Airport to C-470, a distance of 118 miles. It would be a fully elevated transit system on two tracks aligned to the north, south, or in the median of I-70. The system would connect to the regional transportation district network in Jefferson County and local and regional transit services at most of the 15 proposed transit stations along the route. The advanced guideway system would require new tunnel bores at both the Eisenhower-Johnson Memorial Tunnels and the Twin Tunnels. The six-lane highway widening improvements included with the preferred alternative maximum program have both 55 miles per hour (mph) and 65 mph design options. The 55 mph option would use the existing I-70 alignment. The 65 mph design would require additional tunnels at Dowd Canyon, Hidden Valley, and Floyd Hill. At Dowd Canyon, two tunnels would be required for eastbound and westbound traffic. The preferred alternative identifies a minimum and maximum range of multi-modal improvements ranging in cost from $16.1 billion to $20.2 billion estimated in year of expenditure dollars and assuming the mid year of construction for the whole alternative is 2025. The 21 action alternatives evaluated in this document range in cost from $1.9 billion to $20.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Improvements would increase capacity, improve accessibility and mobility, and decrease congestion for travel demand to destinations along the I-70 Mountain Corridor as well as for interstate travel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Automobile and truck traffic would continue to degrade air quality, displace key wildlife habitat, and impede and endanger wildlife movements. Contamination from vehicles which then is washed into nearby streams would impact water quality. Under the preferred alternative, the increase in runoff would range from 16 percent to 24 percent. Removal, modification or disturbance of habitat for aquatic species would occur. Historic resources that could be affected include several nationally significant properties, including the Georgetown-Silver Plume National Historic Landmark District and as many as 75 different historic properties. Geologic hazards would need careful examination during Tier 2 processes to locate and design improvements to minimize effects. The preferred alternative would affect between 65 and 90 recreation sites. Transportation energy consumption would increase significantly, particularly under modal options involving highways. 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.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the original and revised draft EISs, see 05-0396D, Volume 29, Number 3 and 10-0498D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110073, Final EIS--527 pages, Appendices--855 pages, Technical Reports--6 volumes, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 34 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cost Assessments KW - Energy Consumption KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Colorado 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 - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130719?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-70+MOUNTAIN+CORRIDOR%2C+GARFIELD%2C+EAGLE%2C+SUMMIT%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-70+MOUNTAIN+CORRIDOR%2C+GARFIELD%2C+EAGLE%2C+SUMMIT%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR, GARFIELD, EAGLE, SUMMIT, CLEAR CREEK AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 8 of 39] T2 - I-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR, GARFIELD, EAGLE, SUMMIT, CLEAR CREEK AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 873130701; 14829-3_0008 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements along the 144-mile-long Interstate 70 (I-70) Mountain Corridor between Glenwood Springs and State Route 470 (C-470), Garfield, Eagle, Summit, Clear Creek and Jefferson counties, Colorado are proposed. The I-70 highway is the only east-west interstate to cross Colorado, directly serves more than 20 communities and a number of major ski resorts, provides access to the White River National Forest and the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests, and is an important freight corridor. Population growth in the Corridor and in the Denver metropolitan area has increased traffic volumes and recreational travelers currently experience substantial delays on weekends and holidays on the eastern side of the corridor while the western side experiences work trip delays during the week. This project began in 2000 and a revised programmatic draft EIS was issued in 2004. Twenty-one action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this first tier programmatic final EIS. The preferred alternative consists of near-term and general long-term improvements for the Corridor to meet the travel demand for 2050 and address immediate Corridor needs. To address future uncertainties, trigger points and stakeholder involvement would be used to reassess needs and to determine the most appropriate transportation improvements to meet future demand. The preferred alternative would implement a multimodal solution and include non-infrastructure related components, an advanced guideway system, and highway improvements. A specific advanced guideway system technology would be determined in subsequent study or a Tier 2 process and would be deployed to provide transit service from the Eagle County Regional Airport to C-470, a distance of 118 miles. It would be a fully elevated transit system on two tracks aligned to the north, south, or in the median of I-70. The system would connect to the regional transportation district network in Jefferson County and local and regional transit services at most of the 15 proposed transit stations along the route. The advanced guideway system would require new tunnel bores at both the Eisenhower-Johnson Memorial Tunnels and the Twin Tunnels. The six-lane highway widening improvements included with the preferred alternative maximum program have both 55 miles per hour (mph) and 65 mph design options. The 55 mph option would use the existing I-70 alignment. The 65 mph design would require additional tunnels at Dowd Canyon, Hidden Valley, and Floyd Hill. At Dowd Canyon, two tunnels would be required for eastbound and westbound traffic. The preferred alternative identifies a minimum and maximum range of multi-modal improvements ranging in cost from $16.1 billion to $20.2 billion estimated in year of expenditure dollars and assuming the mid year of construction for the whole alternative is 2025. The 21 action alternatives evaluated in this document range in cost from $1.9 billion to $20.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Improvements would increase capacity, improve accessibility and mobility, and decrease congestion for travel demand to destinations along the I-70 Mountain Corridor as well as for interstate travel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Automobile and truck traffic would continue to degrade air quality, displace key wildlife habitat, and impede and endanger wildlife movements. Contamination from vehicles which then is washed into nearby streams would impact water quality. Under the preferred alternative, the increase in runoff would range from 16 percent to 24 percent. Removal, modification or disturbance of habitat for aquatic species would occur. Historic resources that could be affected include several nationally significant properties, including the Georgetown-Silver Plume National Historic Landmark District and as many as 75 different historic properties. Geologic hazards would need careful examination during Tier 2 processes to locate and design improvements to minimize effects. The preferred alternative would affect between 65 and 90 recreation sites. Transportation energy consumption would increase significantly, particularly under modal options involving highways. 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.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the original and revised draft EISs, see 05-0396D, Volume 29, Number 3 and 10-0498D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110073, Final EIS--527 pages, Appendices--855 pages, Technical Reports--6 volumes, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cost Assessments KW - Energy Consumption KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Colorado 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 - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130701?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-70+MOUNTAIN+CORRIDOR%2C+GARFIELD%2C+EAGLE%2C+SUMMIT%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-70+MOUNTAIN+CORRIDOR%2C+GARFIELD%2C+EAGLE%2C+SUMMIT%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR, GARFIELD, EAGLE, SUMMIT, CLEAR CREEK AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 7 of 39] T2 - I-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR, GARFIELD, EAGLE, SUMMIT, CLEAR CREEK AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 873130691; 14829-3_0007 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements along the 144-mile-long Interstate 70 (I-70) Mountain Corridor between Glenwood Springs and State Route 470 (C-470), Garfield, Eagle, Summit, Clear Creek and Jefferson counties, Colorado are proposed. The I-70 highway is the only east-west interstate to cross Colorado, directly serves more than 20 communities and a number of major ski resorts, provides access to the White River National Forest and the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests, and is an important freight corridor. Population growth in the Corridor and in the Denver metropolitan area has increased traffic volumes and recreational travelers currently experience substantial delays on weekends and holidays on the eastern side of the corridor while the western side experiences work trip delays during the week. This project began in 2000 and a revised programmatic draft EIS was issued in 2004. Twenty-one action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this first tier programmatic final EIS. The preferred alternative consists of near-term and general long-term improvements for the Corridor to meet the travel demand for 2050 and address immediate Corridor needs. To address future uncertainties, trigger points and stakeholder involvement would be used to reassess needs and to determine the most appropriate transportation improvements to meet future demand. The preferred alternative would implement a multimodal solution and include non-infrastructure related components, an advanced guideway system, and highway improvements. A specific advanced guideway system technology would be determined in subsequent study or a Tier 2 process and would be deployed to provide transit service from the Eagle County Regional Airport to C-470, a distance of 118 miles. It would be a fully elevated transit system on two tracks aligned to the north, south, or in the median of I-70. The system would connect to the regional transportation district network in Jefferson County and local and regional transit services at most of the 15 proposed transit stations along the route. The advanced guideway system would require new tunnel bores at both the Eisenhower-Johnson Memorial Tunnels and the Twin Tunnels. The six-lane highway widening improvements included with the preferred alternative maximum program have both 55 miles per hour (mph) and 65 mph design options. The 55 mph option would use the existing I-70 alignment. The 65 mph design would require additional tunnels at Dowd Canyon, Hidden Valley, and Floyd Hill. At Dowd Canyon, two tunnels would be required for eastbound and westbound traffic. The preferred alternative identifies a minimum and maximum range of multi-modal improvements ranging in cost from $16.1 billion to $20.2 billion estimated in year of expenditure dollars and assuming the mid year of construction for the whole alternative is 2025. The 21 action alternatives evaluated in this document range in cost from $1.9 billion to $20.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Improvements would increase capacity, improve accessibility and mobility, and decrease congestion for travel demand to destinations along the I-70 Mountain Corridor as well as for interstate travel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Automobile and truck traffic would continue to degrade air quality, displace key wildlife habitat, and impede and endanger wildlife movements. Contamination from vehicles which then is washed into nearby streams would impact water quality. Under the preferred alternative, the increase in runoff would range from 16 percent to 24 percent. Removal, modification or disturbance of habitat for aquatic species would occur. Historic resources that could be affected include several nationally significant properties, including the Georgetown-Silver Plume National Historic Landmark District and as many as 75 different historic properties. Geologic hazards would need careful examination during Tier 2 processes to locate and design improvements to minimize effects. The preferred alternative would affect between 65 and 90 recreation sites. Transportation energy consumption would increase significantly, particularly under modal options involving highways. 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.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the original and revised draft EISs, see 05-0396D, Volume 29, Number 3 and 10-0498D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110073, Final EIS--527 pages, Appendices--855 pages, Technical Reports--6 volumes, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cost Assessments KW - Energy Consumption KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Colorado 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 - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130691?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-70+MOUNTAIN+CORRIDOR%2C+GARFIELD%2C+EAGLE%2C+SUMMIT%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-70+MOUNTAIN+CORRIDOR%2C+GARFIELD%2C+EAGLE%2C+SUMMIT%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR, GARFIELD, EAGLE, SUMMIT, CLEAR CREEK AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 6 of 39] T2 - I-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR, GARFIELD, EAGLE, SUMMIT, CLEAR CREEK AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 873130672; 14829-3_0006 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements along the 144-mile-long Interstate 70 (I-70) Mountain Corridor between Glenwood Springs and State Route 470 (C-470), Garfield, Eagle, Summit, Clear Creek and Jefferson counties, Colorado are proposed. The I-70 highway is the only east-west interstate to cross Colorado, directly serves more than 20 communities and a number of major ski resorts, provides access to the White River National Forest and the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests, and is an important freight corridor. Population growth in the Corridor and in the Denver metropolitan area has increased traffic volumes and recreational travelers currently experience substantial delays on weekends and holidays on the eastern side of the corridor while the western side experiences work trip delays during the week. This project began in 2000 and a revised programmatic draft EIS was issued in 2004. Twenty-one action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this first tier programmatic final EIS. The preferred alternative consists of near-term and general long-term improvements for the Corridor to meet the travel demand for 2050 and address immediate Corridor needs. To address future uncertainties, trigger points and stakeholder involvement would be used to reassess needs and to determine the most appropriate transportation improvements to meet future demand. The preferred alternative would implement a multimodal solution and include non-infrastructure related components, an advanced guideway system, and highway improvements. A specific advanced guideway system technology would be determined in subsequent study or a Tier 2 process and would be deployed to provide transit service from the Eagle County Regional Airport to C-470, a distance of 118 miles. It would be a fully elevated transit system on two tracks aligned to the north, south, or in the median of I-70. The system would connect to the regional transportation district network in Jefferson County and local and regional transit services at most of the 15 proposed transit stations along the route. The advanced guideway system would require new tunnel bores at both the Eisenhower-Johnson Memorial Tunnels and the Twin Tunnels. The six-lane highway widening improvements included with the preferred alternative maximum program have both 55 miles per hour (mph) and 65 mph design options. The 55 mph option would use the existing I-70 alignment. The 65 mph design would require additional tunnels at Dowd Canyon, Hidden Valley, and Floyd Hill. At Dowd Canyon, two tunnels would be required for eastbound and westbound traffic. The preferred alternative identifies a minimum and maximum range of multi-modal improvements ranging in cost from $16.1 billion to $20.2 billion estimated in year of expenditure dollars and assuming the mid year of construction for the whole alternative is 2025. The 21 action alternatives evaluated in this document range in cost from $1.9 billion to $20.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Improvements would increase capacity, improve accessibility and mobility, and decrease congestion for travel demand to destinations along the I-70 Mountain Corridor as well as for interstate travel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Automobile and truck traffic would continue to degrade air quality, displace key wildlife habitat, and impede and endanger wildlife movements. Contamination from vehicles which then is washed into nearby streams would impact water quality. Under the preferred alternative, the increase in runoff would range from 16 percent to 24 percent. Removal, modification or disturbance of habitat for aquatic species would occur. Historic resources that could be affected include several nationally significant properties, including the Georgetown-Silver Plume National Historic Landmark District and as many as 75 different historic properties. Geologic hazards would need careful examination during Tier 2 processes to locate and design improvements to minimize effects. The preferred alternative would affect between 65 and 90 recreation sites. Transportation energy consumption would increase significantly, particularly under modal options involving highways. 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.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the original and revised draft EISs, see 05-0396D, Volume 29, Number 3 and 10-0498D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110073, Final EIS--527 pages, Appendices--855 pages, Technical Reports--6 volumes, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cost Assessments KW - Energy Consumption KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Colorado 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 - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130672?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-70+MOUNTAIN+CORRIDOR%2C+GARFIELD%2C+EAGLE%2C+SUMMIT%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-70+MOUNTAIN+CORRIDOR%2C+GARFIELD%2C+EAGLE%2C+SUMMIT%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR, GARFIELD, EAGLE, SUMMIT, CLEAR CREEK AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 3 of 39] T2 - I-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR, GARFIELD, EAGLE, SUMMIT, CLEAR CREEK AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 873130641; 14829-3_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements along the 144-mile-long Interstate 70 (I-70) Mountain Corridor between Glenwood Springs and State Route 470 (C-470), Garfield, Eagle, Summit, Clear Creek and Jefferson counties, Colorado are proposed. The I-70 highway is the only east-west interstate to cross Colorado, directly serves more than 20 communities and a number of major ski resorts, provides access to the White River National Forest and the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests, and is an important freight corridor. Population growth in the Corridor and in the Denver metropolitan area has increased traffic volumes and recreational travelers currently experience substantial delays on weekends and holidays on the eastern side of the corridor while the western side experiences work trip delays during the week. This project began in 2000 and a revised programmatic draft EIS was issued in 2004. Twenty-one action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this first tier programmatic final EIS. The preferred alternative consists of near-term and general long-term improvements for the Corridor to meet the travel demand for 2050 and address immediate Corridor needs. To address future uncertainties, trigger points and stakeholder involvement would be used to reassess needs and to determine the most appropriate transportation improvements to meet future demand. The preferred alternative would implement a multimodal solution and include non-infrastructure related components, an advanced guideway system, and highway improvements. A specific advanced guideway system technology would be determined in subsequent study or a Tier 2 process and would be deployed to provide transit service from the Eagle County Regional Airport to C-470, a distance of 118 miles. It would be a fully elevated transit system on two tracks aligned to the north, south, or in the median of I-70. The system would connect to the regional transportation district network in Jefferson County and local and regional transit services at most of the 15 proposed transit stations along the route. The advanced guideway system would require new tunnel bores at both the Eisenhower-Johnson Memorial Tunnels and the Twin Tunnels. The six-lane highway widening improvements included with the preferred alternative maximum program have both 55 miles per hour (mph) and 65 mph design options. The 55 mph option would use the existing I-70 alignment. The 65 mph design would require additional tunnels at Dowd Canyon, Hidden Valley, and Floyd Hill. At Dowd Canyon, two tunnels would be required for eastbound and westbound traffic. The preferred alternative identifies a minimum and maximum range of multi-modal improvements ranging in cost from $16.1 billion to $20.2 billion estimated in year of expenditure dollars and assuming the mid year of construction for the whole alternative is 2025. The 21 action alternatives evaluated in this document range in cost from $1.9 billion to $20.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Improvements would increase capacity, improve accessibility and mobility, and decrease congestion for travel demand to destinations along the I-70 Mountain Corridor as well as for interstate travel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Automobile and truck traffic would continue to degrade air quality, displace key wildlife habitat, and impede and endanger wildlife movements. Contamination from vehicles which then is washed into nearby streams would impact water quality. Under the preferred alternative, the increase in runoff would range from 16 percent to 24 percent. Removal, modification or disturbance of habitat for aquatic species would occur. Historic resources that could be affected include several nationally significant properties, including the Georgetown-Silver Plume National Historic Landmark District and as many as 75 different historic properties. Geologic hazards would need careful examination during Tier 2 processes to locate and design improvements to minimize effects. The preferred alternative would affect between 65 and 90 recreation sites. Transportation energy consumption would increase significantly, particularly under modal options involving highways. 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.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the original and revised draft EISs, see 05-0396D, Volume 29, Number 3 and 10-0498D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110073, Final EIS--527 pages, Appendices--855 pages, Technical Reports--6 volumes, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cost Assessments KW - Energy Consumption KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Colorado 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 - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130641?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-70+MOUNTAIN+CORRIDOR%2C+GARFIELD%2C+EAGLE%2C+SUMMIT%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-70+MOUNTAIN+CORRIDOR%2C+GARFIELD%2C+EAGLE%2C+SUMMIT%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 55 of 68] T2 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 873129784; 14827-1_0055 AB - PURPOSE: The mining of phosphate ore at the Blackfoot Bridge Mine, located 10 miles northeast of Soda Springs in Caribou County, Idaho is proposed. P4 Production, LLC (P4), a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto Company, Inc., submitted an initial mine and reclamation plan in November 2005 and a revised plan in October 2008. The revised plan proposes a new open pit phosphate mining operation on federal mineral leases that would include external overburden piles, a haul road, and a water management plan. Under the proposed action, phosphate ore would be mined and hauled eight miles to P4's Soda Springs elemental phosphorous plant for processing. No processing other than typical crushing and screening operations would occur at the mine site and all chemical processing activities would occur at the Soda Springs plant. The Blackfoot Bridge Mine ore reserve would be developed using an open pit mining method on a series of bench cuts, using a combination of in-pit retreating ramps and backfill ramps. The primary equipment for ore and overburden mining would be a combination of trucks, track-mounted excavators, bulldozers, and front-end loaders. A track-hoe excavator would also be used to maximize recovery of ore in the bottom of the pit. The project would be mined in a phased approach with mining and reclamation activities continuing for 17 years. Ore would be recovered from three mine pits beginning in Mid Pit, followed by the North Pit and South Pit. All overburden would either be backfilled into mined-out portions of the mine pits or placed in the external east overburden pile or northwest overburden pile. Facilities would include: 1) an ore stockpile and truck loading area; 2) an ore truck turnaround loop and equipment yard; 3) two water management ponds and other water control structures; 4) topsoil stockpiles; 5) sediment control dams; 6) roads; and 7) sediment control structures. A surface water diversion ditch would be constructed from the unnamed tributary to Fish Pond to the water management ponds. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, a layer of impermeable material would be constructed between the segregated Meade Peak overburden and the applied growth medium to eliminate potential effects of water infiltrating into the backfilled pits and external overburden piles. Alternative 1A, which is the preferred alternative, would use a geosynthetic clay laminate layer (GCLL) cover system over core materials in the east overburden pile and overburden pits. Alternative 1B would use a GCLL over the entire east overburden pile and overburden pits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would ensure economically viable development of phosphate resources and allow the lessee to exercise its right to develop those resources. Reduced infiltration of precipitation into the backfilled overburden and east overburden pile would reduce the concentration of selenium and constituents of particular concern in groundwater that discharges to the Blackfoot River to levels that would meet local water quality standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of 91 million bank cubic yards of overburden would disturb soils, increase erosion and sediment transport rates, and result in the loss of 99 acres of wildlife habitat and of 9.4 acres of wetlands. Mining would result in release of selenium and trace metals and groundwater quality would be potentially impacted by seepage from the proposed overburden piles and backfilled pits. Construction of facilities would have effects on topography and stability of the landscape. Surface disturbance would total 739 acres and 65 acres not reclaimed would represent long-term modification. Annual fugitive dust emissions from mining operations would be 138 tons per year. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, potential reduction in groundwater levels would be greater than that predicted under the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0265D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110071, 921 pages and maps, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 55 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-ID-320-2006-EIS-1553 KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Diversion Structures KW - Emissions KW - Erosion KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Phosphates KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Soils KW - Water Quality KW - Idaho KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129784?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 54 of 68] T2 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 873129747; 14827-1_0054 AB - PURPOSE: The mining of phosphate ore at the Blackfoot Bridge Mine, located 10 miles northeast of Soda Springs in Caribou County, Idaho is proposed. P4 Production, LLC (P4), a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto Company, Inc., submitted an initial mine and reclamation plan in November 2005 and a revised plan in October 2008. The revised plan proposes a new open pit phosphate mining operation on federal mineral leases that would include external overburden piles, a haul road, and a water management plan. Under the proposed action, phosphate ore would be mined and hauled eight miles to P4's Soda Springs elemental phosphorous plant for processing. No processing other than typical crushing and screening operations would occur at the mine site and all chemical processing activities would occur at the Soda Springs plant. The Blackfoot Bridge Mine ore reserve would be developed using an open pit mining method on a series of bench cuts, using a combination of in-pit retreating ramps and backfill ramps. The primary equipment for ore and overburden mining would be a combination of trucks, track-mounted excavators, bulldozers, and front-end loaders. A track-hoe excavator would also be used to maximize recovery of ore in the bottom of the pit. The project would be mined in a phased approach with mining and reclamation activities continuing for 17 years. Ore would be recovered from three mine pits beginning in Mid Pit, followed by the North Pit and South Pit. All overburden would either be backfilled into mined-out portions of the mine pits or placed in the external east overburden pile or northwest overburden pile. Facilities would include: 1) an ore stockpile and truck loading area; 2) an ore truck turnaround loop and equipment yard; 3) two water management ponds and other water control structures; 4) topsoil stockpiles; 5) sediment control dams; 6) roads; and 7) sediment control structures. A surface water diversion ditch would be constructed from the unnamed tributary to Fish Pond to the water management ponds. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, a layer of impermeable material would be constructed between the segregated Meade Peak overburden and the applied growth medium to eliminate potential effects of water infiltrating into the backfilled pits and external overburden piles. Alternative 1A, which is the preferred alternative, would use a geosynthetic clay laminate layer (GCLL) cover system over core materials in the east overburden pile and overburden pits. Alternative 1B would use a GCLL over the entire east overburden pile and overburden pits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would ensure economically viable development of phosphate resources and allow the lessee to exercise its right to develop those resources. Reduced infiltration of precipitation into the backfilled overburden and east overburden pile would reduce the concentration of selenium and constituents of particular concern in groundwater that discharges to the Blackfoot River to levels that would meet local water quality standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of 91 million bank cubic yards of overburden would disturb soils, increase erosion and sediment transport rates, and result in the loss of 99 acres of wildlife habitat and of 9.4 acres of wetlands. Mining would result in release of selenium and trace metals and groundwater quality would be potentially impacted by seepage from the proposed overburden piles and backfilled pits. Construction of facilities would have effects on topography and stability of the landscape. Surface disturbance would total 739 acres and 65 acres not reclaimed would represent long-term modification. Annual fugitive dust emissions from mining operations would be 138 tons per year. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, potential reduction in groundwater levels would be greater than that predicted under the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0265D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110071, 921 pages and maps, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 54 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-ID-320-2006-EIS-1553 KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Diversion Structures KW - Emissions KW - Erosion KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Phosphates KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Soils KW - Water Quality KW - Idaho KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129747?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 32 of 68] T2 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 873129709; 14827-1_0032 AB - PURPOSE: The mining of phosphate ore at the Blackfoot Bridge Mine, located 10 miles northeast of Soda Springs in Caribou County, Idaho is proposed. P4 Production, LLC (P4), a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto Company, Inc., submitted an initial mine and reclamation plan in November 2005 and a revised plan in October 2008. The revised plan proposes a new open pit phosphate mining operation on federal mineral leases that would include external overburden piles, a haul road, and a water management plan. Under the proposed action, phosphate ore would be mined and hauled eight miles to P4's Soda Springs elemental phosphorous plant for processing. No processing other than typical crushing and screening operations would occur at the mine site and all chemical processing activities would occur at the Soda Springs plant. The Blackfoot Bridge Mine ore reserve would be developed using an open pit mining method on a series of bench cuts, using a combination of in-pit retreating ramps and backfill ramps. The primary equipment for ore and overburden mining would be a combination of trucks, track-mounted excavators, bulldozers, and front-end loaders. A track-hoe excavator would also be used to maximize recovery of ore in the bottom of the pit. The project would be mined in a phased approach with mining and reclamation activities continuing for 17 years. Ore would be recovered from three mine pits beginning in Mid Pit, followed by the North Pit and South Pit. All overburden would either be backfilled into mined-out portions of the mine pits or placed in the external east overburden pile or northwest overburden pile. Facilities would include: 1) an ore stockpile and truck loading area; 2) an ore truck turnaround loop and equipment yard; 3) two water management ponds and other water control structures; 4) topsoil stockpiles; 5) sediment control dams; 6) roads; and 7) sediment control structures. A surface water diversion ditch would be constructed from the unnamed tributary to Fish Pond to the water management ponds. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, a layer of impermeable material would be constructed between the segregated Meade Peak overburden and the applied growth medium to eliminate potential effects of water infiltrating into the backfilled pits and external overburden piles. Alternative 1A, which is the preferred alternative, would use a geosynthetic clay laminate layer (GCLL) cover system over core materials in the east overburden pile and overburden pits. Alternative 1B would use a GCLL over the entire east overburden pile and overburden pits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would ensure economically viable development of phosphate resources and allow the lessee to exercise its right to develop those resources. Reduced infiltration of precipitation into the backfilled overburden and east overburden pile would reduce the concentration of selenium and constituents of particular concern in groundwater that discharges to the Blackfoot River to levels that would meet local water quality standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of 91 million bank cubic yards of overburden would disturb soils, increase erosion and sediment transport rates, and result in the loss of 99 acres of wildlife habitat and of 9.4 acres of wetlands. Mining would result in release of selenium and trace metals and groundwater quality would be potentially impacted by seepage from the proposed overburden piles and backfilled pits. Construction of facilities would have effects on topography and stability of the landscape. Surface disturbance would total 739 acres and 65 acres not reclaimed would represent long-term modification. Annual fugitive dust emissions from mining operations would be 138 tons per year. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, potential reduction in groundwater levels would be greater than that predicted under the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0265D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110071, 921 pages and maps, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 32 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-ID-320-2006-EIS-1553 KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Diversion Structures KW - Emissions KW - Erosion KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Phosphates KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Soils KW - Water Quality KW - Idaho KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129709?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 68 of 68] T2 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 873129476; 14827-1_0068 AB - PURPOSE: The mining of phosphate ore at the Blackfoot Bridge Mine, located 10 miles northeast of Soda Springs in Caribou County, Idaho is proposed. P4 Production, LLC (P4), a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto Company, Inc., submitted an initial mine and reclamation plan in November 2005 and a revised plan in October 2008. The revised plan proposes a new open pit phosphate mining operation on federal mineral leases that would include external overburden piles, a haul road, and a water management plan. Under the proposed action, phosphate ore would be mined and hauled eight miles to P4's Soda Springs elemental phosphorous plant for processing. No processing other than typical crushing and screening operations would occur at the mine site and all chemical processing activities would occur at the Soda Springs plant. The Blackfoot Bridge Mine ore reserve would be developed using an open pit mining method on a series of bench cuts, using a combination of in-pit retreating ramps and backfill ramps. The primary equipment for ore and overburden mining would be a combination of trucks, track-mounted excavators, bulldozers, and front-end loaders. A track-hoe excavator would also be used to maximize recovery of ore in the bottom of the pit. The project would be mined in a phased approach with mining and reclamation activities continuing for 17 years. Ore would be recovered from three mine pits beginning in Mid Pit, followed by the North Pit and South Pit. All overburden would either be backfilled into mined-out portions of the mine pits or placed in the external east overburden pile or northwest overburden pile. Facilities would include: 1) an ore stockpile and truck loading area; 2) an ore truck turnaround loop and equipment yard; 3) two water management ponds and other water control structures; 4) topsoil stockpiles; 5) sediment control dams; 6) roads; and 7) sediment control structures. A surface water diversion ditch would be constructed from the unnamed tributary to Fish Pond to the water management ponds. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, a layer of impermeable material would be constructed between the segregated Meade Peak overburden and the applied growth medium to eliminate potential effects of water infiltrating into the backfilled pits and external overburden piles. Alternative 1A, which is the preferred alternative, would use a geosynthetic clay laminate layer (GCLL) cover system over core materials in the east overburden pile and overburden pits. Alternative 1B would use a GCLL over the entire east overburden pile and overburden pits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would ensure economically viable development of phosphate resources and allow the lessee to exercise its right to develop those resources. Reduced infiltration of precipitation into the backfilled overburden and east overburden pile would reduce the concentration of selenium and constituents of particular concern in groundwater that discharges to the Blackfoot River to levels that would meet local water quality standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of 91 million bank cubic yards of overburden would disturb soils, increase erosion and sediment transport rates, and result in the loss of 99 acres of wildlife habitat and of 9.4 acres of wetlands. Mining would result in release of selenium and trace metals and groundwater quality would be potentially impacted by seepage from the proposed overburden piles and backfilled pits. Construction of facilities would have effects on topography and stability of the landscape. Surface disturbance would total 739 acres and 65 acres not reclaimed would represent long-term modification. Annual fugitive dust emissions from mining operations would be 138 tons per year. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, potential reduction in groundwater levels would be greater than that predicted under the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0265D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110071, 921 pages and maps, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 68 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-ID-320-2006-EIS-1553 KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Diversion Structures KW - Emissions KW - Erosion KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Phosphates KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Soils KW - Water Quality KW - Idaho KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129476?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 67 of 68] T2 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 873129440; 14827-1_0067 AB - PURPOSE: The mining of phosphate ore at the Blackfoot Bridge Mine, located 10 miles northeast of Soda Springs in Caribou County, Idaho is proposed. P4 Production, LLC (P4), a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto Company, Inc., submitted an initial mine and reclamation plan in November 2005 and a revised plan in October 2008. The revised plan proposes a new open pit phosphate mining operation on federal mineral leases that would include external overburden piles, a haul road, and a water management plan. Under the proposed action, phosphate ore would be mined and hauled eight miles to P4's Soda Springs elemental phosphorous plant for processing. No processing other than typical crushing and screening operations would occur at the mine site and all chemical processing activities would occur at the Soda Springs plant. The Blackfoot Bridge Mine ore reserve would be developed using an open pit mining method on a series of bench cuts, using a combination of in-pit retreating ramps and backfill ramps. The primary equipment for ore and overburden mining would be a combination of trucks, track-mounted excavators, bulldozers, and front-end loaders. A track-hoe excavator would also be used to maximize recovery of ore in the bottom of the pit. The project would be mined in a phased approach with mining and reclamation activities continuing for 17 years. Ore would be recovered from three mine pits beginning in Mid Pit, followed by the North Pit and South Pit. All overburden would either be backfilled into mined-out portions of the mine pits or placed in the external east overburden pile or northwest overburden pile. Facilities would include: 1) an ore stockpile and truck loading area; 2) an ore truck turnaround loop and equipment yard; 3) two water management ponds and other water control structures; 4) topsoil stockpiles; 5) sediment control dams; 6) roads; and 7) sediment control structures. A surface water diversion ditch would be constructed from the unnamed tributary to Fish Pond to the water management ponds. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, a layer of impermeable material would be constructed between the segregated Meade Peak overburden and the applied growth medium to eliminate potential effects of water infiltrating into the backfilled pits and external overburden piles. Alternative 1A, which is the preferred alternative, would use a geosynthetic clay laminate layer (GCLL) cover system over core materials in the east overburden pile and overburden pits. Alternative 1B would use a GCLL over the entire east overburden pile and overburden pits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would ensure economically viable development of phosphate resources and allow the lessee to exercise its right to develop those resources. Reduced infiltration of precipitation into the backfilled overburden and east overburden pile would reduce the concentration of selenium and constituents of particular concern in groundwater that discharges to the Blackfoot River to levels that would meet local water quality standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of 91 million bank cubic yards of overburden would disturb soils, increase erosion and sediment transport rates, and result in the loss of 99 acres of wildlife habitat and of 9.4 acres of wetlands. Mining would result in release of selenium and trace metals and groundwater quality would be potentially impacted by seepage from the proposed overburden piles and backfilled pits. Construction of facilities would have effects on topography and stability of the landscape. Surface disturbance would total 739 acres and 65 acres not reclaimed would represent long-term modification. Annual fugitive dust emissions from mining operations would be 138 tons per year. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, potential reduction in groundwater levels would be greater than that predicted under the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0265D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110071, 921 pages and maps, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 67 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-ID-320-2006-EIS-1553 KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Diversion Structures KW - Emissions KW - Erosion KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Phosphates KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Soils KW - Water Quality KW - Idaho KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129440?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 66 of 68] T2 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 873129397; 14827-1_0066 AB - PURPOSE: The mining of phosphate ore at the Blackfoot Bridge Mine, located 10 miles northeast of Soda Springs in Caribou County, Idaho is proposed. P4 Production, LLC (P4), a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto Company, Inc., submitted an initial mine and reclamation plan in November 2005 and a revised plan in October 2008. The revised plan proposes a new open pit phosphate mining operation on federal mineral leases that would include external overburden piles, a haul road, and a water management plan. Under the proposed action, phosphate ore would be mined and hauled eight miles to P4's Soda Springs elemental phosphorous plant for processing. No processing other than typical crushing and screening operations would occur at the mine site and all chemical processing activities would occur at the Soda Springs plant. The Blackfoot Bridge Mine ore reserve would be developed using an open pit mining method on a series of bench cuts, using a combination of in-pit retreating ramps and backfill ramps. The primary equipment for ore and overburden mining would be a combination of trucks, track-mounted excavators, bulldozers, and front-end loaders. A track-hoe excavator would also be used to maximize recovery of ore in the bottom of the pit. The project would be mined in a phased approach with mining and reclamation activities continuing for 17 years. Ore would be recovered from three mine pits beginning in Mid Pit, followed by the North Pit and South Pit. All overburden would either be backfilled into mined-out portions of the mine pits or placed in the external east overburden pile or northwest overburden pile. Facilities would include: 1) an ore stockpile and truck loading area; 2) an ore truck turnaround loop and equipment yard; 3) two water management ponds and other water control structures; 4) topsoil stockpiles; 5) sediment control dams; 6) roads; and 7) sediment control structures. A surface water diversion ditch would be constructed from the unnamed tributary to Fish Pond to the water management ponds. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, a layer of impermeable material would be constructed between the segregated Meade Peak overburden and the applied growth medium to eliminate potential effects of water infiltrating into the backfilled pits and external overburden piles. Alternative 1A, which is the preferred alternative, would use a geosynthetic clay laminate layer (GCLL) cover system over core materials in the east overburden pile and overburden pits. Alternative 1B would use a GCLL over the entire east overburden pile and overburden pits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would ensure economically viable development of phosphate resources and allow the lessee to exercise its right to develop those resources. Reduced infiltration of precipitation into the backfilled overburden and east overburden pile would reduce the concentration of selenium and constituents of particular concern in groundwater that discharges to the Blackfoot River to levels that would meet local water quality standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of 91 million bank cubic yards of overburden would disturb soils, increase erosion and sediment transport rates, and result in the loss of 99 acres of wildlife habitat and of 9.4 acres of wetlands. Mining would result in release of selenium and trace metals and groundwater quality would be potentially impacted by seepage from the proposed overburden piles and backfilled pits. Construction of facilities would have effects on topography and stability of the landscape. Surface disturbance would total 739 acres and 65 acres not reclaimed would represent long-term modification. Annual fugitive dust emissions from mining operations would be 138 tons per year. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, potential reduction in groundwater levels would be greater than that predicted under the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0265D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110071, 921 pages and maps, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 66 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-ID-320-2006-EIS-1553 KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Diversion Structures KW - Emissions KW - Erosion KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Phosphates KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Soils KW - Water Quality KW - Idaho KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129397?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 60 of 68] T2 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 873129361; 14827-1_0060 AB - PURPOSE: The mining of phosphate ore at the Blackfoot Bridge Mine, located 10 miles northeast of Soda Springs in Caribou County, Idaho is proposed. P4 Production, LLC (P4), a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto Company, Inc., submitted an initial mine and reclamation plan in November 2005 and a revised plan in October 2008. The revised plan proposes a new open pit phosphate mining operation on federal mineral leases that would include external overburden piles, a haul road, and a water management plan. Under the proposed action, phosphate ore would be mined and hauled eight miles to P4's Soda Springs elemental phosphorous plant for processing. No processing other than typical crushing and screening operations would occur at the mine site and all chemical processing activities would occur at the Soda Springs plant. The Blackfoot Bridge Mine ore reserve would be developed using an open pit mining method on a series of bench cuts, using a combination of in-pit retreating ramps and backfill ramps. The primary equipment for ore and overburden mining would be a combination of trucks, track-mounted excavators, bulldozers, and front-end loaders. A track-hoe excavator would also be used to maximize recovery of ore in the bottom of the pit. The project would be mined in a phased approach with mining and reclamation activities continuing for 17 years. Ore would be recovered from three mine pits beginning in Mid Pit, followed by the North Pit and South Pit. All overburden would either be backfilled into mined-out portions of the mine pits or placed in the external east overburden pile or northwest overburden pile. Facilities would include: 1) an ore stockpile and truck loading area; 2) an ore truck turnaround loop and equipment yard; 3) two water management ponds and other water control structures; 4) topsoil stockpiles; 5) sediment control dams; 6) roads; and 7) sediment control structures. A surface water diversion ditch would be constructed from the unnamed tributary to Fish Pond to the water management ponds. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, a layer of impermeable material would be constructed between the segregated Meade Peak overburden and the applied growth medium to eliminate potential effects of water infiltrating into the backfilled pits and external overburden piles. Alternative 1A, which is the preferred alternative, would use a geosynthetic clay laminate layer (GCLL) cover system over core materials in the east overburden pile and overburden pits. Alternative 1B would use a GCLL over the entire east overburden pile and overburden pits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would ensure economically viable development of phosphate resources and allow the lessee to exercise its right to develop those resources. Reduced infiltration of precipitation into the backfilled overburden and east overburden pile would reduce the concentration of selenium and constituents of particular concern in groundwater that discharges to the Blackfoot River to levels that would meet local water quality standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of 91 million bank cubic yards of overburden would disturb soils, increase erosion and sediment transport rates, and result in the loss of 99 acres of wildlife habitat and of 9.4 acres of wetlands. Mining would result in release of selenium and trace metals and groundwater quality would be potentially impacted by seepage from the proposed overburden piles and backfilled pits. Construction of facilities would have effects on topography and stability of the landscape. Surface disturbance would total 739 acres and 65 acres not reclaimed would represent long-term modification. Annual fugitive dust emissions from mining operations would be 138 tons per year. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, potential reduction in groundwater levels would be greater than that predicted under the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0265D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110071, 921 pages and maps, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 60 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-ID-320-2006-EIS-1553 KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Diversion Structures KW - Emissions KW - Erosion KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Phosphates KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Soils KW - Water Quality KW - Idaho KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129361?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 58 of 68] T2 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 873129338; 14827-1_0058 AB - PURPOSE: The mining of phosphate ore at the Blackfoot Bridge Mine, located 10 miles northeast of Soda Springs in Caribou County, Idaho is proposed. P4 Production, LLC (P4), a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto Company, Inc., submitted an initial mine and reclamation plan in November 2005 and a revised plan in October 2008. The revised plan proposes a new open pit phosphate mining operation on federal mineral leases that would include external overburden piles, a haul road, and a water management plan. Under the proposed action, phosphate ore would be mined and hauled eight miles to P4's Soda Springs elemental phosphorous plant for processing. No processing other than typical crushing and screening operations would occur at the mine site and all chemical processing activities would occur at the Soda Springs plant. The Blackfoot Bridge Mine ore reserve would be developed using an open pit mining method on a series of bench cuts, using a combination of in-pit retreating ramps and backfill ramps. The primary equipment for ore and overburden mining would be a combination of trucks, track-mounted excavators, bulldozers, and front-end loaders. A track-hoe excavator would also be used to maximize recovery of ore in the bottom of the pit. The project would be mined in a phased approach with mining and reclamation activities continuing for 17 years. Ore would be recovered from three mine pits beginning in Mid Pit, followed by the North Pit and South Pit. All overburden would either be backfilled into mined-out portions of the mine pits or placed in the external east overburden pile or northwest overburden pile. Facilities would include: 1) an ore stockpile and truck loading area; 2) an ore truck turnaround loop and equipment yard; 3) two water management ponds and other water control structures; 4) topsoil stockpiles; 5) sediment control dams; 6) roads; and 7) sediment control structures. A surface water diversion ditch would be constructed from the unnamed tributary to Fish Pond to the water management ponds. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, a layer of impermeable material would be constructed between the segregated Meade Peak overburden and the applied growth medium to eliminate potential effects of water infiltrating into the backfilled pits and external overburden piles. Alternative 1A, which is the preferred alternative, would use a geosynthetic clay laminate layer (GCLL) cover system over core materials in the east overburden pile and overburden pits. Alternative 1B would use a GCLL over the entire east overburden pile and overburden pits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would ensure economically viable development of phosphate resources and allow the lessee to exercise its right to develop those resources. Reduced infiltration of precipitation into the backfilled overburden and east overburden pile would reduce the concentration of selenium and constituents of particular concern in groundwater that discharges to the Blackfoot River to levels that would meet local water quality standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of 91 million bank cubic yards of overburden would disturb soils, increase erosion and sediment transport rates, and result in the loss of 99 acres of wildlife habitat and of 9.4 acres of wetlands. Mining would result in release of selenium and trace metals and groundwater quality would be potentially impacted by seepage from the proposed overburden piles and backfilled pits. Construction of facilities would have effects on topography and stability of the landscape. Surface disturbance would total 739 acres and 65 acres not reclaimed would represent long-term modification. Annual fugitive dust emissions from mining operations would be 138 tons per year. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, potential reduction in groundwater levels would be greater than that predicted under the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0265D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110071, 921 pages and maps, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 58 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-ID-320-2006-EIS-1553 KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Diversion Structures KW - Emissions KW - Erosion KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Phosphates KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Soils KW - Water Quality KW - Idaho KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129338?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 57 of 68] T2 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 873129299; 14827-1_0057 AB - PURPOSE: The mining of phosphate ore at the Blackfoot Bridge Mine, located 10 miles northeast of Soda Springs in Caribou County, Idaho is proposed. P4 Production, LLC (P4), a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto Company, Inc., submitted an initial mine and reclamation plan in November 2005 and a revised plan in October 2008. The revised plan proposes a new open pit phosphate mining operation on federal mineral leases that would include external overburden piles, a haul road, and a water management plan. Under the proposed action, phosphate ore would be mined and hauled eight miles to P4's Soda Springs elemental phosphorous plant for processing. No processing other than typical crushing and screening operations would occur at the mine site and all chemical processing activities would occur at the Soda Springs plant. The Blackfoot Bridge Mine ore reserve would be developed using an open pit mining method on a series of bench cuts, using a combination of in-pit retreating ramps and backfill ramps. The primary equipment for ore and overburden mining would be a combination of trucks, track-mounted excavators, bulldozers, and front-end loaders. A track-hoe excavator would also be used to maximize recovery of ore in the bottom of the pit. The project would be mined in a phased approach with mining and reclamation activities continuing for 17 years. Ore would be recovered from three mine pits beginning in Mid Pit, followed by the North Pit and South Pit. All overburden would either be backfilled into mined-out portions of the mine pits or placed in the external east overburden pile or northwest overburden pile. Facilities would include: 1) an ore stockpile and truck loading area; 2) an ore truck turnaround loop and equipment yard; 3) two water management ponds and other water control structures; 4) topsoil stockpiles; 5) sediment control dams; 6) roads; and 7) sediment control structures. A surface water diversion ditch would be constructed from the unnamed tributary to Fish Pond to the water management ponds. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, a layer of impermeable material would be constructed between the segregated Meade Peak overburden and the applied growth medium to eliminate potential effects of water infiltrating into the backfilled pits and external overburden piles. Alternative 1A, which is the preferred alternative, would use a geosynthetic clay laminate layer (GCLL) cover system over core materials in the east overburden pile and overburden pits. Alternative 1B would use a GCLL over the entire east overburden pile and overburden pits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would ensure economically viable development of phosphate resources and allow the lessee to exercise its right to develop those resources. Reduced infiltration of precipitation into the backfilled overburden and east overburden pile would reduce the concentration of selenium and constituents of particular concern in groundwater that discharges to the Blackfoot River to levels that would meet local water quality standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of 91 million bank cubic yards of overburden would disturb soils, increase erosion and sediment transport rates, and result in the loss of 99 acres of wildlife habitat and of 9.4 acres of wetlands. Mining would result in release of selenium and trace metals and groundwater quality would be potentially impacted by seepage from the proposed overburden piles and backfilled pits. Construction of facilities would have effects on topography and stability of the landscape. Surface disturbance would total 739 acres and 65 acres not reclaimed would represent long-term modification. Annual fugitive dust emissions from mining operations would be 138 tons per year. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, potential reduction in groundwater levels would be greater than that predicted under the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0265D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110071, 921 pages and maps, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 57 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-ID-320-2006-EIS-1553 KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Diversion Structures KW - Emissions KW - Erosion KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Phosphates KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Soils KW - Water Quality KW - Idaho KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129299?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 56 of 68] T2 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 873129265; 14827-1_0056 AB - PURPOSE: The mining of phosphate ore at the Blackfoot Bridge Mine, located 10 miles northeast of Soda Springs in Caribou County, Idaho is proposed. P4 Production, LLC (P4), a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto Company, Inc., submitted an initial mine and reclamation plan in November 2005 and a revised plan in October 2008. The revised plan proposes a new open pit phosphate mining operation on federal mineral leases that would include external overburden piles, a haul road, and a water management plan. Under the proposed action, phosphate ore would be mined and hauled eight miles to P4's Soda Springs elemental phosphorous plant for processing. No processing other than typical crushing and screening operations would occur at the mine site and all chemical processing activities would occur at the Soda Springs plant. The Blackfoot Bridge Mine ore reserve would be developed using an open pit mining method on a series of bench cuts, using a combination of in-pit retreating ramps and backfill ramps. The primary equipment for ore and overburden mining would be a combination of trucks, track-mounted excavators, bulldozers, and front-end loaders. A track-hoe excavator would also be used to maximize recovery of ore in the bottom of the pit. The project would be mined in a phased approach with mining and reclamation activities continuing for 17 years. Ore would be recovered from three mine pits beginning in Mid Pit, followed by the North Pit and South Pit. All overburden would either be backfilled into mined-out portions of the mine pits or placed in the external east overburden pile or northwest overburden pile. Facilities would include: 1) an ore stockpile and truck loading area; 2) an ore truck turnaround loop and equipment yard; 3) two water management ponds and other water control structures; 4) topsoil stockpiles; 5) sediment control dams; 6) roads; and 7) sediment control structures. A surface water diversion ditch would be constructed from the unnamed tributary to Fish Pond to the water management ponds. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, a layer of impermeable material would be constructed between the segregated Meade Peak overburden and the applied growth medium to eliminate potential effects of water infiltrating into the backfilled pits and external overburden piles. Alternative 1A, which is the preferred alternative, would use a geosynthetic clay laminate layer (GCLL) cover system over core materials in the east overburden pile and overburden pits. Alternative 1B would use a GCLL over the entire east overburden pile and overburden pits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would ensure economically viable development of phosphate resources and allow the lessee to exercise its right to develop those resources. Reduced infiltration of precipitation into the backfilled overburden and east overburden pile would reduce the concentration of selenium and constituents of particular concern in groundwater that discharges to the Blackfoot River to levels that would meet local water quality standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of 91 million bank cubic yards of overburden would disturb soils, increase erosion and sediment transport rates, and result in the loss of 99 acres of wildlife habitat and of 9.4 acres of wetlands. Mining would result in release of selenium and trace metals and groundwater quality would be potentially impacted by seepage from the proposed overburden piles and backfilled pits. Construction of facilities would have effects on topography and stability of the landscape. Surface disturbance would total 739 acres and 65 acres not reclaimed would represent long-term modification. Annual fugitive dust emissions from mining operations would be 138 tons per year. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, potential reduction in groundwater levels would be greater than that predicted under the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0265D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110071, 921 pages and maps, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 56 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-ID-320-2006-EIS-1553 KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Diversion Structures KW - Emissions KW - Erosion KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Phosphates KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Soils KW - Water Quality KW - Idaho KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129265?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 49 of 68] T2 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 873129242; 14827-1_0049 AB - PURPOSE: The mining of phosphate ore at the Blackfoot Bridge Mine, located 10 miles northeast of Soda Springs in Caribou County, Idaho is proposed. P4 Production, LLC (P4), a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto Company, Inc., submitted an initial mine and reclamation plan in November 2005 and a revised plan in October 2008. The revised plan proposes a new open pit phosphate mining operation on federal mineral leases that would include external overburden piles, a haul road, and a water management plan. Under the proposed action, phosphate ore would be mined and hauled eight miles to P4's Soda Springs elemental phosphorous plant for processing. No processing other than typical crushing and screening operations would occur at the mine site and all chemical processing activities would occur at the Soda Springs plant. The Blackfoot Bridge Mine ore reserve would be developed using an open pit mining method on a series of bench cuts, using a combination of in-pit retreating ramps and backfill ramps. The primary equipment for ore and overburden mining would be a combination of trucks, track-mounted excavators, bulldozers, and front-end loaders. A track-hoe excavator would also be used to maximize recovery of ore in the bottom of the pit. The project would be mined in a phased approach with mining and reclamation activities continuing for 17 years. Ore would be recovered from three mine pits beginning in Mid Pit, followed by the North Pit and South Pit. All overburden would either be backfilled into mined-out portions of the mine pits or placed in the external east overburden pile or northwest overburden pile. Facilities would include: 1) an ore stockpile and truck loading area; 2) an ore truck turnaround loop and equipment yard; 3) two water management ponds and other water control structures; 4) topsoil stockpiles; 5) sediment control dams; 6) roads; and 7) sediment control structures. A surface water diversion ditch would be constructed from the unnamed tributary to Fish Pond to the water management ponds. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, a layer of impermeable material would be constructed between the segregated Meade Peak overburden and the applied growth medium to eliminate potential effects of water infiltrating into the backfilled pits and external overburden piles. Alternative 1A, which is the preferred alternative, would use a geosynthetic clay laminate layer (GCLL) cover system over core materials in the east overburden pile and overburden pits. Alternative 1B would use a GCLL over the entire east overburden pile and overburden pits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would ensure economically viable development of phosphate resources and allow the lessee to exercise its right to develop those resources. Reduced infiltration of precipitation into the backfilled overburden and east overburden pile would reduce the concentration of selenium and constituents of particular concern in groundwater that discharges to the Blackfoot River to levels that would meet local water quality standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of 91 million bank cubic yards of overburden would disturb soils, increase erosion and sediment transport rates, and result in the loss of 99 acres of wildlife habitat and of 9.4 acres of wetlands. Mining would result in release of selenium and trace metals and groundwater quality would be potentially impacted by seepage from the proposed overburden piles and backfilled pits. Construction of facilities would have effects on topography and stability of the landscape. Surface disturbance would total 739 acres and 65 acres not reclaimed would represent long-term modification. Annual fugitive dust emissions from mining operations would be 138 tons per year. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, potential reduction in groundwater levels would be greater than that predicted under the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0265D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110071, 921 pages and maps, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 49 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-ID-320-2006-EIS-1553 KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Diversion Structures KW - Emissions KW - Erosion KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Phosphates KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Soils KW - Water Quality KW - Idaho KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129242?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 48 of 68] T2 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 873129206; 14827-1_0048 AB - PURPOSE: The mining of phosphate ore at the Blackfoot Bridge Mine, located 10 miles northeast of Soda Springs in Caribou County, Idaho is proposed. P4 Production, LLC (P4), a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto Company, Inc., submitted an initial mine and reclamation plan in November 2005 and a revised plan in October 2008. The revised plan proposes a new open pit phosphate mining operation on federal mineral leases that would include external overburden piles, a haul road, and a water management plan. Under the proposed action, phosphate ore would be mined and hauled eight miles to P4's Soda Springs elemental phosphorous plant for processing. No processing other than typical crushing and screening operations would occur at the mine site and all chemical processing activities would occur at the Soda Springs plant. The Blackfoot Bridge Mine ore reserve would be developed using an open pit mining method on a series of bench cuts, using a combination of in-pit retreating ramps and backfill ramps. The primary equipment for ore and overburden mining would be a combination of trucks, track-mounted excavators, bulldozers, and front-end loaders. A track-hoe excavator would also be used to maximize recovery of ore in the bottom of the pit. The project would be mined in a phased approach with mining and reclamation activities continuing for 17 years. Ore would be recovered from three mine pits beginning in Mid Pit, followed by the North Pit and South Pit. All overburden would either be backfilled into mined-out portions of the mine pits or placed in the external east overburden pile or northwest overburden pile. Facilities would include: 1) an ore stockpile and truck loading area; 2) an ore truck turnaround loop and equipment yard; 3) two water management ponds and other water control structures; 4) topsoil stockpiles; 5) sediment control dams; 6) roads; and 7) sediment control structures. A surface water diversion ditch would be constructed from the unnamed tributary to Fish Pond to the water management ponds. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, a layer of impermeable material would be constructed between the segregated Meade Peak overburden and the applied growth medium to eliminate potential effects of water infiltrating into the backfilled pits and external overburden piles. Alternative 1A, which is the preferred alternative, would use a geosynthetic clay laminate layer (GCLL) cover system over core materials in the east overburden pile and overburden pits. Alternative 1B would use a GCLL over the entire east overburden pile and overburden pits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would ensure economically viable development of phosphate resources and allow the lessee to exercise its right to develop those resources. Reduced infiltration of precipitation into the backfilled overburden and east overburden pile would reduce the concentration of selenium and constituents of particular concern in groundwater that discharges to the Blackfoot River to levels that would meet local water quality standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of 91 million bank cubic yards of overburden would disturb soils, increase erosion and sediment transport rates, and result in the loss of 99 acres of wildlife habitat and of 9.4 acres of wetlands. Mining would result in release of selenium and trace metals and groundwater quality would be potentially impacted by seepage from the proposed overburden piles and backfilled pits. Construction of facilities would have effects on topography and stability of the landscape. Surface disturbance would total 739 acres and 65 acres not reclaimed would represent long-term modification. Annual fugitive dust emissions from mining operations would be 138 tons per year. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, potential reduction in groundwater levels would be greater than that predicted under the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0265D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110071, 921 pages and maps, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 48 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-ID-320-2006-EIS-1553 KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Diversion Structures KW - Emissions KW - Erosion KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Phosphates KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Soils KW - Water Quality KW - Idaho KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129206?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 47 of 68] T2 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 873129171; 14827-1_0047 AB - PURPOSE: The mining of phosphate ore at the Blackfoot Bridge Mine, located 10 miles northeast of Soda Springs in Caribou County, Idaho is proposed. P4 Production, LLC (P4), a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto Company, Inc., submitted an initial mine and reclamation plan in November 2005 and a revised plan in October 2008. The revised plan proposes a new open pit phosphate mining operation on federal mineral leases that would include external overburden piles, a haul road, and a water management plan. Under the proposed action, phosphate ore would be mined and hauled eight miles to P4's Soda Springs elemental phosphorous plant for processing. No processing other than typical crushing and screening operations would occur at the mine site and all chemical processing activities would occur at the Soda Springs plant. The Blackfoot Bridge Mine ore reserve would be developed using an open pit mining method on a series of bench cuts, using a combination of in-pit retreating ramps and backfill ramps. The primary equipment for ore and overburden mining would be a combination of trucks, track-mounted excavators, bulldozers, and front-end loaders. A track-hoe excavator would also be used to maximize recovery of ore in the bottom of the pit. The project would be mined in a phased approach with mining and reclamation activities continuing for 17 years. Ore would be recovered from three mine pits beginning in Mid Pit, followed by the North Pit and South Pit. All overburden would either be backfilled into mined-out portions of the mine pits or placed in the external east overburden pile or northwest overburden pile. Facilities would include: 1) an ore stockpile and truck loading area; 2) an ore truck turnaround loop and equipment yard; 3) two water management ponds and other water control structures; 4) topsoil stockpiles; 5) sediment control dams; 6) roads; and 7) sediment control structures. A surface water diversion ditch would be constructed from the unnamed tributary to Fish Pond to the water management ponds. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, a layer of impermeable material would be constructed between the segregated Meade Peak overburden and the applied growth medium to eliminate potential effects of water infiltrating into the backfilled pits and external overburden piles. Alternative 1A, which is the preferred alternative, would use a geosynthetic clay laminate layer (GCLL) cover system over core materials in the east overburden pile and overburden pits. Alternative 1B would use a GCLL over the entire east overburden pile and overburden pits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would ensure economically viable development of phosphate resources and allow the lessee to exercise its right to develop those resources. Reduced infiltration of precipitation into the backfilled overburden and east overburden pile would reduce the concentration of selenium and constituents of particular concern in groundwater that discharges to the Blackfoot River to levels that would meet local water quality standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of 91 million bank cubic yards of overburden would disturb soils, increase erosion and sediment transport rates, and result in the loss of 99 acres of wildlife habitat and of 9.4 acres of wetlands. Mining would result in release of selenium and trace metals and groundwater quality would be potentially impacted by seepage from the proposed overburden piles and backfilled pits. Construction of facilities would have effects on topography and stability of the landscape. Surface disturbance would total 739 acres and 65 acres not reclaimed would represent long-term modification. Annual fugitive dust emissions from mining operations would be 138 tons per year. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, potential reduction in groundwater levels would be greater than that predicted under the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0265D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110071, 921 pages and maps, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 47 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-ID-320-2006-EIS-1553 KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Diversion Structures KW - Emissions KW - Erosion KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Phosphates KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Soils KW - Water Quality KW - Idaho KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129171?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 34 of 68] T2 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 873129149; 14827-1_0034 AB - PURPOSE: The mining of phosphate ore at the Blackfoot Bridge Mine, located 10 miles northeast of Soda Springs in Caribou County, Idaho is proposed. P4 Production, LLC (P4), a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto Company, Inc., submitted an initial mine and reclamation plan in November 2005 and a revised plan in October 2008. The revised plan proposes a new open pit phosphate mining operation on federal mineral leases that would include external overburden piles, a haul road, and a water management plan. Under the proposed action, phosphate ore would be mined and hauled eight miles to P4's Soda Springs elemental phosphorous plant for processing. No processing other than typical crushing and screening operations would occur at the mine site and all chemical processing activities would occur at the Soda Springs plant. The Blackfoot Bridge Mine ore reserve would be developed using an open pit mining method on a series of bench cuts, using a combination of in-pit retreating ramps and backfill ramps. The primary equipment for ore and overburden mining would be a combination of trucks, track-mounted excavators, bulldozers, and front-end loaders. A track-hoe excavator would also be used to maximize recovery of ore in the bottom of the pit. The project would be mined in a phased approach with mining and reclamation activities continuing for 17 years. Ore would be recovered from three mine pits beginning in Mid Pit, followed by the North Pit and South Pit. All overburden would either be backfilled into mined-out portions of the mine pits or placed in the external east overburden pile or northwest overburden pile. Facilities would include: 1) an ore stockpile and truck loading area; 2) an ore truck turnaround loop and equipment yard; 3) two water management ponds and other water control structures; 4) topsoil stockpiles; 5) sediment control dams; 6) roads; and 7) sediment control structures. A surface water diversion ditch would be constructed from the unnamed tributary to Fish Pond to the water management ponds. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, a layer of impermeable material would be constructed between the segregated Meade Peak overburden and the applied growth medium to eliminate potential effects of water infiltrating into the backfilled pits and external overburden piles. Alternative 1A, which is the preferred alternative, would use a geosynthetic clay laminate layer (GCLL) cover system over core materials in the east overburden pile and overburden pits. Alternative 1B would use a GCLL over the entire east overburden pile and overburden pits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would ensure economically viable development of phosphate resources and allow the lessee to exercise its right to develop those resources. Reduced infiltration of precipitation into the backfilled overburden and east overburden pile would reduce the concentration of selenium and constituents of particular concern in groundwater that discharges to the Blackfoot River to levels that would meet local water quality standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of 91 million bank cubic yards of overburden would disturb soils, increase erosion and sediment transport rates, and result in the loss of 99 acres of wildlife habitat and of 9.4 acres of wetlands. Mining would result in release of selenium and trace metals and groundwater quality would be potentially impacted by seepage from the proposed overburden piles and backfilled pits. Construction of facilities would have effects on topography and stability of the landscape. Surface disturbance would total 739 acres and 65 acres not reclaimed would represent long-term modification. Annual fugitive dust emissions from mining operations would be 138 tons per year. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, potential reduction in groundwater levels would be greater than that predicted under the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0265D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110071, 921 pages and maps, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 34 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-ID-320-2006-EIS-1553 KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Diversion Structures KW - Emissions KW - Erosion KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Phosphates KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Soils KW - Water Quality KW - Idaho KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129149?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 33 of 68] T2 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 873129116; 14827-1_0033 AB - PURPOSE: The mining of phosphate ore at the Blackfoot Bridge Mine, located 10 miles northeast of Soda Springs in Caribou County, Idaho is proposed. P4 Production, LLC (P4), a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto Company, Inc., submitted an initial mine and reclamation plan in November 2005 and a revised plan in October 2008. The revised plan proposes a new open pit phosphate mining operation on federal mineral leases that would include external overburden piles, a haul road, and a water management plan. Under the proposed action, phosphate ore would be mined and hauled eight miles to P4's Soda Springs elemental phosphorous plant for processing. No processing other than typical crushing and screening operations would occur at the mine site and all chemical processing activities would occur at the Soda Springs plant. The Blackfoot Bridge Mine ore reserve would be developed using an open pit mining method on a series of bench cuts, using a combination of in-pit retreating ramps and backfill ramps. The primary equipment for ore and overburden mining would be a combination of trucks, track-mounted excavators, bulldozers, and front-end loaders. A track-hoe excavator would also be used to maximize recovery of ore in the bottom of the pit. The project would be mined in a phased approach with mining and reclamation activities continuing for 17 years. Ore would be recovered from three mine pits beginning in Mid Pit, followed by the North Pit and South Pit. All overburden would either be backfilled into mined-out portions of the mine pits or placed in the external east overburden pile or northwest overburden pile. Facilities would include: 1) an ore stockpile and truck loading area; 2) an ore truck turnaround loop and equipment yard; 3) two water management ponds and other water control structures; 4) topsoil stockpiles; 5) sediment control dams; 6) roads; and 7) sediment control structures. A surface water diversion ditch would be constructed from the unnamed tributary to Fish Pond to the water management ponds. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, a layer of impermeable material would be constructed between the segregated Meade Peak overburden and the applied growth medium to eliminate potential effects of water infiltrating into the backfilled pits and external overburden piles. Alternative 1A, which is the preferred alternative, would use a geosynthetic clay laminate layer (GCLL) cover system over core materials in the east overburden pile and overburden pits. Alternative 1B would use a GCLL over the entire east overburden pile and overburden pits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would ensure economically viable development of phosphate resources and allow the lessee to exercise its right to develop those resources. Reduced infiltration of precipitation into the backfilled overburden and east overburden pile would reduce the concentration of selenium and constituents of particular concern in groundwater that discharges to the Blackfoot River to levels that would meet local water quality standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of 91 million bank cubic yards of overburden would disturb soils, increase erosion and sediment transport rates, and result in the loss of 99 acres of wildlife habitat and of 9.4 acres of wetlands. Mining would result in release of selenium and trace metals and groundwater quality would be potentially impacted by seepage from the proposed overburden piles and backfilled pits. Construction of facilities would have effects on topography and stability of the landscape. Surface disturbance would total 739 acres and 65 acres not reclaimed would represent long-term modification. Annual fugitive dust emissions from mining operations would be 138 tons per year. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, potential reduction in groundwater levels would be greater than that predicted under the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0265D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110071, 921 pages and maps, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 33 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-ID-320-2006-EIS-1553 KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Diversion Structures KW - Emissions KW - Erosion KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Phosphates KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Soils KW - Water Quality KW - Idaho KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129116?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 27 of 68] T2 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 873129065; 14827-1_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The mining of phosphate ore at the Blackfoot Bridge Mine, located 10 miles northeast of Soda Springs in Caribou County, Idaho is proposed. P4 Production, LLC (P4), a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto Company, Inc., submitted an initial mine and reclamation plan in November 2005 and a revised plan in October 2008. The revised plan proposes a new open pit phosphate mining operation on federal mineral leases that would include external overburden piles, a haul road, and a water management plan. Under the proposed action, phosphate ore would be mined and hauled eight miles to P4's Soda Springs elemental phosphorous plant for processing. No processing other than typical crushing and screening operations would occur at the mine site and all chemical processing activities would occur at the Soda Springs plant. The Blackfoot Bridge Mine ore reserve would be developed using an open pit mining method on a series of bench cuts, using a combination of in-pit retreating ramps and backfill ramps. The primary equipment for ore and overburden mining would be a combination of trucks, track-mounted excavators, bulldozers, and front-end loaders. A track-hoe excavator would also be used to maximize recovery of ore in the bottom of the pit. The project would be mined in a phased approach with mining and reclamation activities continuing for 17 years. Ore would be recovered from three mine pits beginning in Mid Pit, followed by the North Pit and South Pit. All overburden would either be backfilled into mined-out portions of the mine pits or placed in the external east overburden pile or northwest overburden pile. Facilities would include: 1) an ore stockpile and truck loading area; 2) an ore truck turnaround loop and equipment yard; 3) two water management ponds and other water control structures; 4) topsoil stockpiles; 5) sediment control dams; 6) roads; and 7) sediment control structures. A surface water diversion ditch would be constructed from the unnamed tributary to Fish Pond to the water management ponds. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, a layer of impermeable material would be constructed between the segregated Meade Peak overburden and the applied growth medium to eliminate potential effects of water infiltrating into the backfilled pits and external overburden piles. Alternative 1A, which is the preferred alternative, would use a geosynthetic clay laminate layer (GCLL) cover system over core materials in the east overburden pile and overburden pits. Alternative 1B would use a GCLL over the entire east overburden pile and overburden pits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would ensure economically viable development of phosphate resources and allow the lessee to exercise its right to develop those resources. Reduced infiltration of precipitation into the backfilled overburden and east overburden pile would reduce the concentration of selenium and constituents of particular concern in groundwater that discharges to the Blackfoot River to levels that would meet local water quality standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of 91 million bank cubic yards of overburden would disturb soils, increase erosion and sediment transport rates, and result in the loss of 99 acres of wildlife habitat and of 9.4 acres of wetlands. Mining would result in release of selenium and trace metals and groundwater quality would be potentially impacted by seepage from the proposed overburden piles and backfilled pits. Construction of facilities would have effects on topography and stability of the landscape. Surface disturbance would total 739 acres and 65 acres not reclaimed would represent long-term modification. Annual fugitive dust emissions from mining operations would be 138 tons per year. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, potential reduction in groundwater levels would be greater than that predicted under the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0265D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110071, 921 pages and maps, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 27 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-ID-320-2006-EIS-1553 KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Diversion Structures KW - Emissions KW - Erosion KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Phosphates KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Soils KW - Water Quality KW - Idaho KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129065?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 26 of 68] T2 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 873129045; 14827-1_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The mining of phosphate ore at the Blackfoot Bridge Mine, located 10 miles northeast of Soda Springs in Caribou County, Idaho is proposed. P4 Production, LLC (P4), a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto Company, Inc., submitted an initial mine and reclamation plan in November 2005 and a revised plan in October 2008. The revised plan proposes a new open pit phosphate mining operation on federal mineral leases that would include external overburden piles, a haul road, and a water management plan. Under the proposed action, phosphate ore would be mined and hauled eight miles to P4's Soda Springs elemental phosphorous plant for processing. No processing other than typical crushing and screening operations would occur at the mine site and all chemical processing activities would occur at the Soda Springs plant. The Blackfoot Bridge Mine ore reserve would be developed using an open pit mining method on a series of bench cuts, using a combination of in-pit retreating ramps and backfill ramps. The primary equipment for ore and overburden mining would be a combination of trucks, track-mounted excavators, bulldozers, and front-end loaders. A track-hoe excavator would also be used to maximize recovery of ore in the bottom of the pit. The project would be mined in a phased approach with mining and reclamation activities continuing for 17 years. Ore would be recovered from three mine pits beginning in Mid Pit, followed by the North Pit and South Pit. All overburden would either be backfilled into mined-out portions of the mine pits or placed in the external east overburden pile or northwest overburden pile. Facilities would include: 1) an ore stockpile and truck loading area; 2) an ore truck turnaround loop and equipment yard; 3) two water management ponds and other water control structures; 4) topsoil stockpiles; 5) sediment control dams; 6) roads; and 7) sediment control structures. A surface water diversion ditch would be constructed from the unnamed tributary to Fish Pond to the water management ponds. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, a layer of impermeable material would be constructed between the segregated Meade Peak overburden and the applied growth medium to eliminate potential effects of water infiltrating into the backfilled pits and external overburden piles. Alternative 1A, which is the preferred alternative, would use a geosynthetic clay laminate layer (GCLL) cover system over core materials in the east overburden pile and overburden pits. Alternative 1B would use a GCLL over the entire east overburden pile and overburden pits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would ensure economically viable development of phosphate resources and allow the lessee to exercise its right to develop those resources. Reduced infiltration of precipitation into the backfilled overburden and east overburden pile would reduce the concentration of selenium and constituents of particular concern in groundwater that discharges to the Blackfoot River to levels that would meet local water quality standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of 91 million bank cubic yards of overburden would disturb soils, increase erosion and sediment transport rates, and result in the loss of 99 acres of wildlife habitat and of 9.4 acres of wetlands. Mining would result in release of selenium and trace metals and groundwater quality would be potentially impacted by seepage from the proposed overburden piles and backfilled pits. Construction of facilities would have effects on topography and stability of the landscape. Surface disturbance would total 739 acres and 65 acres not reclaimed would represent long-term modification. Annual fugitive dust emissions from mining operations would be 138 tons per year. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, potential reduction in groundwater levels would be greater than that predicted under the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0265D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110071, 921 pages and maps, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 26 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-ID-320-2006-EIS-1553 KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Diversion Structures KW - Emissions KW - Erosion KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Phosphates KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Soils KW - Water Quality KW - Idaho KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129045?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 25 of 68] T2 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 873129024; 14827-1_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The mining of phosphate ore at the Blackfoot Bridge Mine, located 10 miles northeast of Soda Springs in Caribou County, Idaho is proposed. P4 Production, LLC (P4), a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto Company, Inc., submitted an initial mine and reclamation plan in November 2005 and a revised plan in October 2008. The revised plan proposes a new open pit phosphate mining operation on federal mineral leases that would include external overburden piles, a haul road, and a water management plan. Under the proposed action, phosphate ore would be mined and hauled eight miles to P4's Soda Springs elemental phosphorous plant for processing. No processing other than typical crushing and screening operations would occur at the mine site and all chemical processing activities would occur at the Soda Springs plant. The Blackfoot Bridge Mine ore reserve would be developed using an open pit mining method on a series of bench cuts, using a combination of in-pit retreating ramps and backfill ramps. The primary equipment for ore and overburden mining would be a combination of trucks, track-mounted excavators, bulldozers, and front-end loaders. A track-hoe excavator would also be used to maximize recovery of ore in the bottom of the pit. The project would be mined in a phased approach with mining and reclamation activities continuing for 17 years. Ore would be recovered from three mine pits beginning in Mid Pit, followed by the North Pit and South Pit. All overburden would either be backfilled into mined-out portions of the mine pits or placed in the external east overburden pile or northwest overburden pile. Facilities would include: 1) an ore stockpile and truck loading area; 2) an ore truck turnaround loop and equipment yard; 3) two water management ponds and other water control structures; 4) topsoil stockpiles; 5) sediment control dams; 6) roads; and 7) sediment control structures. A surface water diversion ditch would be constructed from the unnamed tributary to Fish Pond to the water management ponds. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, a layer of impermeable material would be constructed between the segregated Meade Peak overburden and the applied growth medium to eliminate potential effects of water infiltrating into the backfilled pits and external overburden piles. Alternative 1A, which is the preferred alternative, would use a geosynthetic clay laminate layer (GCLL) cover system over core materials in the east overburden pile and overburden pits. Alternative 1B would use a GCLL over the entire east overburden pile and overburden pits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would ensure economically viable development of phosphate resources and allow the lessee to exercise its right to develop those resources. Reduced infiltration of precipitation into the backfilled overburden and east overburden pile would reduce the concentration of selenium and constituents of particular concern in groundwater that discharges to the Blackfoot River to levels that would meet local water quality standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of 91 million bank cubic yards of overburden would disturb soils, increase erosion and sediment transport rates, and result in the loss of 99 acres of wildlife habitat and of 9.4 acres of wetlands. Mining would result in release of selenium and trace metals and groundwater quality would be potentially impacted by seepage from the proposed overburden piles and backfilled pits. Construction of facilities would have effects on topography and stability of the landscape. Surface disturbance would total 739 acres and 65 acres not reclaimed would represent long-term modification. Annual fugitive dust emissions from mining operations would be 138 tons per year. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, potential reduction in groundwater levels would be greater than that predicted under the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0265D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110071, 921 pages and maps, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 25 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-ID-320-2006-EIS-1553 KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Diversion Structures KW - Emissions KW - Erosion KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Phosphates KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Soils KW - Water Quality KW - Idaho KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129024?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 24 of 68] T2 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 873128998; 14827-1_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The mining of phosphate ore at the Blackfoot Bridge Mine, located 10 miles northeast of Soda Springs in Caribou County, Idaho is proposed. P4 Production, LLC (P4), a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto Company, Inc., submitted an initial mine and reclamation plan in November 2005 and a revised plan in October 2008. The revised plan proposes a new open pit phosphate mining operation on federal mineral leases that would include external overburden piles, a haul road, and a water management plan. Under the proposed action, phosphate ore would be mined and hauled eight miles to P4's Soda Springs elemental phosphorous plant for processing. No processing other than typical crushing and screening operations would occur at the mine site and all chemical processing activities would occur at the Soda Springs plant. The Blackfoot Bridge Mine ore reserve would be developed using an open pit mining method on a series of bench cuts, using a combination of in-pit retreating ramps and backfill ramps. The primary equipment for ore and overburden mining would be a combination of trucks, track-mounted excavators, bulldozers, and front-end loaders. A track-hoe excavator would also be used to maximize recovery of ore in the bottom of the pit. The project would be mined in a phased approach with mining and reclamation activities continuing for 17 years. Ore would be recovered from three mine pits beginning in Mid Pit, followed by the North Pit and South Pit. All overburden would either be backfilled into mined-out portions of the mine pits or placed in the external east overburden pile or northwest overburden pile. Facilities would include: 1) an ore stockpile and truck loading area; 2) an ore truck turnaround loop and equipment yard; 3) two water management ponds and other water control structures; 4) topsoil stockpiles; 5) sediment control dams; 6) roads; and 7) sediment control structures. A surface water diversion ditch would be constructed from the unnamed tributary to Fish Pond to the water management ponds. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, a layer of impermeable material would be constructed between the segregated Meade Peak overburden and the applied growth medium to eliminate potential effects of water infiltrating into the backfilled pits and external overburden piles. Alternative 1A, which is the preferred alternative, would use a geosynthetic clay laminate layer (GCLL) cover system over core materials in the east overburden pile and overburden pits. Alternative 1B would use a GCLL over the entire east overburden pile and overburden pits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would ensure economically viable development of phosphate resources and allow the lessee to exercise its right to develop those resources. Reduced infiltration of precipitation into the backfilled overburden and east overburden pile would reduce the concentration of selenium and constituents of particular concern in groundwater that discharges to the Blackfoot River to levels that would meet local water quality standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of 91 million bank cubic yards of overburden would disturb soils, increase erosion and sediment transport rates, and result in the loss of 99 acres of wildlife habitat and of 9.4 acres of wetlands. Mining would result in release of selenium and trace metals and groundwater quality would be potentially impacted by seepage from the proposed overburden piles and backfilled pits. Construction of facilities would have effects on topography and stability of the landscape. Surface disturbance would total 739 acres and 65 acres not reclaimed would represent long-term modification. Annual fugitive dust emissions from mining operations would be 138 tons per year. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, potential reduction in groundwater levels would be greater than that predicted under the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0265D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110071, 921 pages and maps, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 24 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-ID-320-2006-EIS-1553 KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Diversion Structures KW - Emissions KW - Erosion KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Phosphates KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Soils KW - Water Quality KW - Idaho KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128998?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 5 of 68] T2 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 873128970; 14827-1_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The mining of phosphate ore at the Blackfoot Bridge Mine, located 10 miles northeast of Soda Springs in Caribou County, Idaho is proposed. P4 Production, LLC (P4), a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto Company, Inc., submitted an initial mine and reclamation plan in November 2005 and a revised plan in October 2008. The revised plan proposes a new open pit phosphate mining operation on federal mineral leases that would include external overburden piles, a haul road, and a water management plan. Under the proposed action, phosphate ore would be mined and hauled eight miles to P4's Soda Springs elemental phosphorous plant for processing. No processing other than typical crushing and screening operations would occur at the mine site and all chemical processing activities would occur at the Soda Springs plant. The Blackfoot Bridge Mine ore reserve would be developed using an open pit mining method on a series of bench cuts, using a combination of in-pit retreating ramps and backfill ramps. The primary equipment for ore and overburden mining would be a combination of trucks, track-mounted excavators, bulldozers, and front-end loaders. A track-hoe excavator would also be used to maximize recovery of ore in the bottom of the pit. The project would be mined in a phased approach with mining and reclamation activities continuing for 17 years. Ore would be recovered from three mine pits beginning in Mid Pit, followed by the North Pit and South Pit. All overburden would either be backfilled into mined-out portions of the mine pits or placed in the external east overburden pile or northwest overburden pile. Facilities would include: 1) an ore stockpile and truck loading area; 2) an ore truck turnaround loop and equipment yard; 3) two water management ponds and other water control structures; 4) topsoil stockpiles; 5) sediment control dams; 6) roads; and 7) sediment control structures. A surface water diversion ditch would be constructed from the unnamed tributary to Fish Pond to the water management ponds. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, a layer of impermeable material would be constructed between the segregated Meade Peak overburden and the applied growth medium to eliminate potential effects of water infiltrating into the backfilled pits and external overburden piles. Alternative 1A, which is the preferred alternative, would use a geosynthetic clay laminate layer (GCLL) cover system over core materials in the east overburden pile and overburden pits. Alternative 1B would use a GCLL over the entire east overburden pile and overburden pits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would ensure economically viable development of phosphate resources and allow the lessee to exercise its right to develop those resources. Reduced infiltration of precipitation into the backfilled overburden and east overburden pile would reduce the concentration of selenium and constituents of particular concern in groundwater that discharges to the Blackfoot River to levels that would meet local water quality standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of 91 million bank cubic yards of overburden would disturb soils, increase erosion and sediment transport rates, and result in the loss of 99 acres of wildlife habitat and of 9.4 acres of wetlands. Mining would result in release of selenium and trace metals and groundwater quality would be potentially impacted by seepage from the proposed overburden piles and backfilled pits. Construction of facilities would have effects on topography and stability of the landscape. Surface disturbance would total 739 acres and 65 acres not reclaimed would represent long-term modification. Annual fugitive dust emissions from mining operations would be 138 tons per year. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, potential reduction in groundwater levels would be greater than that predicted under the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0265D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110071, 921 pages and maps, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-ID-320-2006-EIS-1553 KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Diversion Structures KW - Emissions KW - Erosion KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Phosphates KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Soils KW - Water Quality KW - Idaho KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128970?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 4 of 68] T2 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 873128946; 14827-1_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The mining of phosphate ore at the Blackfoot Bridge Mine, located 10 miles northeast of Soda Springs in Caribou County, Idaho is proposed. P4 Production, LLC (P4), a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto Company, Inc., submitted an initial mine and reclamation plan in November 2005 and a revised plan in October 2008. The revised plan proposes a new open pit phosphate mining operation on federal mineral leases that would include external overburden piles, a haul road, and a water management plan. Under the proposed action, phosphate ore would be mined and hauled eight miles to P4's Soda Springs elemental phosphorous plant for processing. No processing other than typical crushing and screening operations would occur at the mine site and all chemical processing activities would occur at the Soda Springs plant. The Blackfoot Bridge Mine ore reserve would be developed using an open pit mining method on a series of bench cuts, using a combination of in-pit retreating ramps and backfill ramps. The primary equipment for ore and overburden mining would be a combination of trucks, track-mounted excavators, bulldozers, and front-end loaders. A track-hoe excavator would also be used to maximize recovery of ore in the bottom of the pit. The project would be mined in a phased approach with mining and reclamation activities continuing for 17 years. Ore would be recovered from three mine pits beginning in Mid Pit, followed by the North Pit and South Pit. All overburden would either be backfilled into mined-out portions of the mine pits or placed in the external east overburden pile or northwest overburden pile. Facilities would include: 1) an ore stockpile and truck loading area; 2) an ore truck turnaround loop and equipment yard; 3) two water management ponds and other water control structures; 4) topsoil stockpiles; 5) sediment control dams; 6) roads; and 7) sediment control structures. A surface water diversion ditch would be constructed from the unnamed tributary to Fish Pond to the water management ponds. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, a layer of impermeable material would be constructed between the segregated Meade Peak overburden and the applied growth medium to eliminate potential effects of water infiltrating into the backfilled pits and external overburden piles. Alternative 1A, which is the preferred alternative, would use a geosynthetic clay laminate layer (GCLL) cover system over core materials in the east overburden pile and overburden pits. Alternative 1B would use a GCLL over the entire east overburden pile and overburden pits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would ensure economically viable development of phosphate resources and allow the lessee to exercise its right to develop those resources. Reduced infiltration of precipitation into the backfilled overburden and east overburden pile would reduce the concentration of selenium and constituents of particular concern in groundwater that discharges to the Blackfoot River to levels that would meet local water quality standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of 91 million bank cubic yards of overburden would disturb soils, increase erosion and sediment transport rates, and result in the loss of 99 acres of wildlife habitat and of 9.4 acres of wetlands. Mining would result in release of selenium and trace metals and groundwater quality would be potentially impacted by seepage from the proposed overburden piles and backfilled pits. Construction of facilities would have effects on topography and stability of the landscape. Surface disturbance would total 739 acres and 65 acres not reclaimed would represent long-term modification. Annual fugitive dust emissions from mining operations would be 138 tons per year. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, potential reduction in groundwater levels would be greater than that predicted under the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0265D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110071, 921 pages and maps, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-ID-320-2006-EIS-1553 KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Diversion Structures KW - Emissions KW - Erosion KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Phosphates KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Soils KW - Water Quality KW - Idaho KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128946?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR, GARFIELD, EAGLE, SUMMIT, CLEAR CREEK AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 15 of 39] T2 - I-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR, GARFIELD, EAGLE, SUMMIT, CLEAR CREEK AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 873128826; 14829-3_0015 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements along the 144-mile-long Interstate 70 (I-70) Mountain Corridor between Glenwood Springs and State Route 470 (C-470), Garfield, Eagle, Summit, Clear Creek and Jefferson counties, Colorado are proposed. The I-70 highway is the only east-west interstate to cross Colorado, directly serves more than 20 communities and a number of major ski resorts, provides access to the White River National Forest and the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests, and is an important freight corridor. Population growth in the Corridor and in the Denver metropolitan area has increased traffic volumes and recreational travelers currently experience substantial delays on weekends and holidays on the eastern side of the corridor while the western side experiences work trip delays during the week. This project began in 2000 and a revised programmatic draft EIS was issued in 2004. Twenty-one action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this first tier programmatic final EIS. The preferred alternative consists of near-term and general long-term improvements for the Corridor to meet the travel demand for 2050 and address immediate Corridor needs. To address future uncertainties, trigger points and stakeholder involvement would be used to reassess needs and to determine the most appropriate transportation improvements to meet future demand. The preferred alternative would implement a multimodal solution and include non-infrastructure related components, an advanced guideway system, and highway improvements. A specific advanced guideway system technology would be determined in subsequent study or a Tier 2 process and would be deployed to provide transit service from the Eagle County Regional Airport to C-470, a distance of 118 miles. It would be a fully elevated transit system on two tracks aligned to the north, south, or in the median of I-70. The system would connect to the regional transportation district network in Jefferson County and local and regional transit services at most of the 15 proposed transit stations along the route. The advanced guideway system would require new tunnel bores at both the Eisenhower-Johnson Memorial Tunnels and the Twin Tunnels. The six-lane highway widening improvements included with the preferred alternative maximum program have both 55 miles per hour (mph) and 65 mph design options. The 55 mph option would use the existing I-70 alignment. The 65 mph design would require additional tunnels at Dowd Canyon, Hidden Valley, and Floyd Hill. At Dowd Canyon, two tunnels would be required for eastbound and westbound traffic. The preferred alternative identifies a minimum and maximum range of multi-modal improvements ranging in cost from $16.1 billion to $20.2 billion estimated in year of expenditure dollars and assuming the mid year of construction for the whole alternative is 2025. The 21 action alternatives evaluated in this document range in cost from $1.9 billion to $20.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Improvements would increase capacity, improve accessibility and mobility, and decrease congestion for travel demand to destinations along the I-70 Mountain Corridor as well as for interstate travel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Automobile and truck traffic would continue to degrade air quality, displace key wildlife habitat, and impede and endanger wildlife movements. Contamination from vehicles which then is washed into nearby streams would impact water quality. Under the preferred alternative, the increase in runoff would range from 16 percent to 24 percent. Removal, modification or disturbance of habitat for aquatic species would occur. Historic resources that could be affected include several nationally significant properties, including the Georgetown-Silver Plume National Historic Landmark District and as many as 75 different historic properties. Geologic hazards would need careful examination during Tier 2 processes to locate and design improvements to minimize effects. The preferred alternative would affect between 65 and 90 recreation sites. Transportation energy consumption would increase significantly, particularly under modal options involving highways. 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.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the original and revised draft EISs, see 05-0396D, Volume 29, Number 3 and 10-0498D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110073, Final EIS--527 pages, Appendices--855 pages, Technical Reports--6 volumes, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cost Assessments KW - Energy Consumption KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Colorado 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 - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128826?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-70+MOUNTAIN+CORRIDOR%2C+GARFIELD%2C+EAGLE%2C+SUMMIT%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-70+MOUNTAIN+CORRIDOR%2C+GARFIELD%2C+EAGLE%2C+SUMMIT%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR, GARFIELD, EAGLE, SUMMIT, CLEAR CREEK AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 14 of 39] T2 - I-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR, GARFIELD, EAGLE, SUMMIT, CLEAR CREEK AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 873128812; 14829-3_0014 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements along the 144-mile-long Interstate 70 (I-70) Mountain Corridor between Glenwood Springs and State Route 470 (C-470), Garfield, Eagle, Summit, Clear Creek and Jefferson counties, Colorado are proposed. The I-70 highway is the only east-west interstate to cross Colorado, directly serves more than 20 communities and a number of major ski resorts, provides access to the White River National Forest and the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests, and is an important freight corridor. Population growth in the Corridor and in the Denver metropolitan area has increased traffic volumes and recreational travelers currently experience substantial delays on weekends and holidays on the eastern side of the corridor while the western side experiences work trip delays during the week. This project began in 2000 and a revised programmatic draft EIS was issued in 2004. Twenty-one action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this first tier programmatic final EIS. The preferred alternative consists of near-term and general long-term improvements for the Corridor to meet the travel demand for 2050 and address immediate Corridor needs. To address future uncertainties, trigger points and stakeholder involvement would be used to reassess needs and to determine the most appropriate transportation improvements to meet future demand. The preferred alternative would implement a multimodal solution and include non-infrastructure related components, an advanced guideway system, and highway improvements. A specific advanced guideway system technology would be determined in subsequent study or a Tier 2 process and would be deployed to provide transit service from the Eagle County Regional Airport to C-470, a distance of 118 miles. It would be a fully elevated transit system on two tracks aligned to the north, south, or in the median of I-70. The system would connect to the regional transportation district network in Jefferson County and local and regional transit services at most of the 15 proposed transit stations along the route. The advanced guideway system would require new tunnel bores at both the Eisenhower-Johnson Memorial Tunnels and the Twin Tunnels. The six-lane highway widening improvements included with the preferred alternative maximum program have both 55 miles per hour (mph) and 65 mph design options. The 55 mph option would use the existing I-70 alignment. The 65 mph design would require additional tunnels at Dowd Canyon, Hidden Valley, and Floyd Hill. At Dowd Canyon, two tunnels would be required for eastbound and westbound traffic. The preferred alternative identifies a minimum and maximum range of multi-modal improvements ranging in cost from $16.1 billion to $20.2 billion estimated in year of expenditure dollars and assuming the mid year of construction for the whole alternative is 2025. The 21 action alternatives evaluated in this document range in cost from $1.9 billion to $20.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Improvements would increase capacity, improve accessibility and mobility, and decrease congestion for travel demand to destinations along the I-70 Mountain Corridor as well as for interstate travel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Automobile and truck traffic would continue to degrade air quality, displace key wildlife habitat, and impede and endanger wildlife movements. Contamination from vehicles which then is washed into nearby streams would impact water quality. Under the preferred alternative, the increase in runoff would range from 16 percent to 24 percent. Removal, modification or disturbance of habitat for aquatic species would occur. Historic resources that could be affected include several nationally significant properties, including the Georgetown-Silver Plume National Historic Landmark District and as many as 75 different historic properties. Geologic hazards would need careful examination during Tier 2 processes to locate and design improvements to minimize effects. The preferred alternative would affect between 65 and 90 recreation sites. Transportation energy consumption would increase significantly, particularly under modal options involving highways. 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.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the original and revised draft EISs, see 05-0396D, Volume 29, Number 3 and 10-0498D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110073, Final EIS--527 pages, Appendices--855 pages, Technical Reports--6 volumes, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cost Assessments KW - Energy Consumption KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Colorado 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 - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128812?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-70+MOUNTAIN+CORRIDOR%2C+GARFIELD%2C+EAGLE%2C+SUMMIT%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-70+MOUNTAIN+CORRIDOR%2C+GARFIELD%2C+EAGLE%2C+SUMMIT%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR, GARFIELD, EAGLE, SUMMIT, CLEAR CREEK AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 13 of 39] T2 - I-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR, GARFIELD, EAGLE, SUMMIT, CLEAR CREEK AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 873128793; 14829-3_0013 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements along the 144-mile-long Interstate 70 (I-70) Mountain Corridor between Glenwood Springs and State Route 470 (C-470), Garfield, Eagle, Summit, Clear Creek and Jefferson counties, Colorado are proposed. The I-70 highway is the only east-west interstate to cross Colorado, directly serves more than 20 communities and a number of major ski resorts, provides access to the White River National Forest and the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests, and is an important freight corridor. Population growth in the Corridor and in the Denver metropolitan area has increased traffic volumes and recreational travelers currently experience substantial delays on weekends and holidays on the eastern side of the corridor while the western side experiences work trip delays during the week. This project began in 2000 and a revised programmatic draft EIS was issued in 2004. Twenty-one action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this first tier programmatic final EIS. The preferred alternative consists of near-term and general long-term improvements for the Corridor to meet the travel demand for 2050 and address immediate Corridor needs. To address future uncertainties, trigger points and stakeholder involvement would be used to reassess needs and to determine the most appropriate transportation improvements to meet future demand. The preferred alternative would implement a multimodal solution and include non-infrastructure related components, an advanced guideway system, and highway improvements. A specific advanced guideway system technology would be determined in subsequent study or a Tier 2 process and would be deployed to provide transit service from the Eagle County Regional Airport to C-470, a distance of 118 miles. It would be a fully elevated transit system on two tracks aligned to the north, south, or in the median of I-70. The system would connect to the regional transportation district network in Jefferson County and local and regional transit services at most of the 15 proposed transit stations along the route. The advanced guideway system would require new tunnel bores at both the Eisenhower-Johnson Memorial Tunnels and the Twin Tunnels. The six-lane highway widening improvements included with the preferred alternative maximum program have both 55 miles per hour (mph) and 65 mph design options. The 55 mph option would use the existing I-70 alignment. The 65 mph design would require additional tunnels at Dowd Canyon, Hidden Valley, and Floyd Hill. At Dowd Canyon, two tunnels would be required for eastbound and westbound traffic. The preferred alternative identifies a minimum and maximum range of multi-modal improvements ranging in cost from $16.1 billion to $20.2 billion estimated in year of expenditure dollars and assuming the mid year of construction for the whole alternative is 2025. The 21 action alternatives evaluated in this document range in cost from $1.9 billion to $20.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Improvements would increase capacity, improve accessibility and mobility, and decrease congestion for travel demand to destinations along the I-70 Mountain Corridor as well as for interstate travel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Automobile and truck traffic would continue to degrade air quality, displace key wildlife habitat, and impede and endanger wildlife movements. Contamination from vehicles which then is washed into nearby streams would impact water quality. Under the preferred alternative, the increase in runoff would range from 16 percent to 24 percent. Removal, modification or disturbance of habitat for aquatic species would occur. Historic resources that could be affected include several nationally significant properties, including the Georgetown-Silver Plume National Historic Landmark District and as many as 75 different historic properties. Geologic hazards would need careful examination during Tier 2 processes to locate and design improvements to minimize effects. The preferred alternative would affect between 65 and 90 recreation sites. Transportation energy consumption would increase significantly, particularly under modal options involving highways. 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.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the original and revised draft EISs, see 05-0396D, Volume 29, Number 3 and 10-0498D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110073, Final EIS--527 pages, Appendices--855 pages, Technical Reports--6 volumes, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cost Assessments KW - Energy Consumption KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Colorado 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 - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128793?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-70+MOUNTAIN+CORRIDOR%2C+GARFIELD%2C+EAGLE%2C+SUMMIT%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-70+MOUNTAIN+CORRIDOR%2C+GARFIELD%2C+EAGLE%2C+SUMMIT%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR, GARFIELD, EAGLE, SUMMIT, CLEAR CREEK AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 11 of 39] T2 - I-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR, GARFIELD, EAGLE, SUMMIT, CLEAR CREEK AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 873128776; 14829-3_0011 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements along the 144-mile-long Interstate 70 (I-70) Mountain Corridor between Glenwood Springs and State Route 470 (C-470), Garfield, Eagle, Summit, Clear Creek and Jefferson counties, Colorado are proposed. The I-70 highway is the only east-west interstate to cross Colorado, directly serves more than 20 communities and a number of major ski resorts, provides access to the White River National Forest and the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests, and is an important freight corridor. Population growth in the Corridor and in the Denver metropolitan area has increased traffic volumes and recreational travelers currently experience substantial delays on weekends and holidays on the eastern side of the corridor while the western side experiences work trip delays during the week. This project began in 2000 and a revised programmatic draft EIS was issued in 2004. Twenty-one action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this first tier programmatic final EIS. The preferred alternative consists of near-term and general long-term improvements for the Corridor to meet the travel demand for 2050 and address immediate Corridor needs. To address future uncertainties, trigger points and stakeholder involvement would be used to reassess needs and to determine the most appropriate transportation improvements to meet future demand. The preferred alternative would implement a multimodal solution and include non-infrastructure related components, an advanced guideway system, and highway improvements. A specific advanced guideway system technology would be determined in subsequent study or a Tier 2 process and would be deployed to provide transit service from the Eagle County Regional Airport to C-470, a distance of 118 miles. It would be a fully elevated transit system on two tracks aligned to the north, south, or in the median of I-70. The system would connect to the regional transportation district network in Jefferson County and local and regional transit services at most of the 15 proposed transit stations along the route. The advanced guideway system would require new tunnel bores at both the Eisenhower-Johnson Memorial Tunnels and the Twin Tunnels. The six-lane highway widening improvements included with the preferred alternative maximum program have both 55 miles per hour (mph) and 65 mph design options. The 55 mph option would use the existing I-70 alignment. The 65 mph design would require additional tunnels at Dowd Canyon, Hidden Valley, and Floyd Hill. At Dowd Canyon, two tunnels would be required for eastbound and westbound traffic. The preferred alternative identifies a minimum and maximum range of multi-modal improvements ranging in cost from $16.1 billion to $20.2 billion estimated in year of expenditure dollars and assuming the mid year of construction for the whole alternative is 2025. The 21 action alternatives evaluated in this document range in cost from $1.9 billion to $20.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Improvements would increase capacity, improve accessibility and mobility, and decrease congestion for travel demand to destinations along the I-70 Mountain Corridor as well as for interstate travel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Automobile and truck traffic would continue to degrade air quality, displace key wildlife habitat, and impede and endanger wildlife movements. Contamination from vehicles which then is washed into nearby streams would impact water quality. Under the preferred alternative, the increase in runoff would range from 16 percent to 24 percent. Removal, modification or disturbance of habitat for aquatic species would occur. Historic resources that could be affected include several nationally significant properties, including the Georgetown-Silver Plume National Historic Landmark District and as many as 75 different historic properties. Geologic hazards would need careful examination during Tier 2 processes to locate and design improvements to minimize effects. The preferred alternative would affect between 65 and 90 recreation sites. Transportation energy consumption would increase significantly, particularly under modal options involving highways. 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.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the original and revised draft EISs, see 05-0396D, Volume 29, Number 3 and 10-0498D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110073, Final EIS--527 pages, Appendices--855 pages, Technical Reports--6 volumes, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cost Assessments KW - Energy Consumption KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Colorado 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 - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128776?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-70+MOUNTAIN+CORRIDOR%2C+GARFIELD%2C+EAGLE%2C+SUMMIT%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-70+MOUNTAIN+CORRIDOR%2C+GARFIELD%2C+EAGLE%2C+SUMMIT%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 3 of 68] T2 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 873128042; 14827-1_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The mining of phosphate ore at the Blackfoot Bridge Mine, located 10 miles northeast of Soda Springs in Caribou County, Idaho is proposed. P4 Production, LLC (P4), a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto Company, Inc., submitted an initial mine and reclamation plan in November 2005 and a revised plan in October 2008. The revised plan proposes a new open pit phosphate mining operation on federal mineral leases that would include external overburden piles, a haul road, and a water management plan. Under the proposed action, phosphate ore would be mined and hauled eight miles to P4's Soda Springs elemental phosphorous plant for processing. No processing other than typical crushing and screening operations would occur at the mine site and all chemical processing activities would occur at the Soda Springs plant. The Blackfoot Bridge Mine ore reserve would be developed using an open pit mining method on a series of bench cuts, using a combination of in-pit retreating ramps and backfill ramps. The primary equipment for ore and overburden mining would be a combination of trucks, track-mounted excavators, bulldozers, and front-end loaders. A track-hoe excavator would also be used to maximize recovery of ore in the bottom of the pit. The project would be mined in a phased approach with mining and reclamation activities continuing for 17 years. Ore would be recovered from three mine pits beginning in Mid Pit, followed by the North Pit and South Pit. All overburden would either be backfilled into mined-out portions of the mine pits or placed in the external east overburden pile or northwest overburden pile. Facilities would include: 1) an ore stockpile and truck loading area; 2) an ore truck turnaround loop and equipment yard; 3) two water management ponds and other water control structures; 4) topsoil stockpiles; 5) sediment control dams; 6) roads; and 7) sediment control structures. A surface water diversion ditch would be constructed from the unnamed tributary to Fish Pond to the water management ponds. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, a layer of impermeable material would be constructed between the segregated Meade Peak overburden and the applied growth medium to eliminate potential effects of water infiltrating into the backfilled pits and external overburden piles. Alternative 1A, which is the preferred alternative, would use a geosynthetic clay laminate layer (GCLL) cover system over core materials in the east overburden pile and overburden pits. Alternative 1B would use a GCLL over the entire east overburden pile and overburden pits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would ensure economically viable development of phosphate resources and allow the lessee to exercise its right to develop those resources. Reduced infiltration of precipitation into the backfilled overburden and east overburden pile would reduce the concentration of selenium and constituents of particular concern in groundwater that discharges to the Blackfoot River to levels that would meet local water quality standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of 91 million bank cubic yards of overburden would disturb soils, increase erosion and sediment transport rates, and result in the loss of 99 acres of wildlife habitat and of 9.4 acres of wetlands. Mining would result in release of selenium and trace metals and groundwater quality would be potentially impacted by seepage from the proposed overburden piles and backfilled pits. Construction of facilities would have effects on topography and stability of the landscape. Surface disturbance would total 739 acres and 65 acres not reclaimed would represent long-term modification. Annual fugitive dust emissions from mining operations would be 138 tons per year. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, potential reduction in groundwater levels would be greater than that predicted under the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0265D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110071, 921 pages and maps, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-ID-320-2006-EIS-1553 KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Diversion Structures KW - Emissions KW - Erosion KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Phosphates KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Soils KW - Water Quality KW - Idaho KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128042?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR, GARFIELD, EAGLE, SUMMIT, CLEAR CREEK AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 10 of 39] T2 - I-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR, GARFIELD, EAGLE, SUMMIT, CLEAR CREEK AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 873128036; 14829-3_0010 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements along the 144-mile-long Interstate 70 (I-70) Mountain Corridor between Glenwood Springs and State Route 470 (C-470), Garfield, Eagle, Summit, Clear Creek and Jefferson counties, Colorado are proposed. The I-70 highway is the only east-west interstate to cross Colorado, directly serves more than 20 communities and a number of major ski resorts, provides access to the White River National Forest and the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests, and is an important freight corridor. Population growth in the Corridor and in the Denver metropolitan area has increased traffic volumes and recreational travelers currently experience substantial delays on weekends and holidays on the eastern side of the corridor while the western side experiences work trip delays during the week. This project began in 2000 and a revised programmatic draft EIS was issued in 2004. Twenty-one action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this first tier programmatic final EIS. The preferred alternative consists of near-term and general long-term improvements for the Corridor to meet the travel demand for 2050 and address immediate Corridor needs. To address future uncertainties, trigger points and stakeholder involvement would be used to reassess needs and to determine the most appropriate transportation improvements to meet future demand. The preferred alternative would implement a multimodal solution and include non-infrastructure related components, an advanced guideway system, and highway improvements. A specific advanced guideway system technology would be determined in subsequent study or a Tier 2 process and would be deployed to provide transit service from the Eagle County Regional Airport to C-470, a distance of 118 miles. It would be a fully elevated transit system on two tracks aligned to the north, south, or in the median of I-70. The system would connect to the regional transportation district network in Jefferson County and local and regional transit services at most of the 15 proposed transit stations along the route. The advanced guideway system would require new tunnel bores at both the Eisenhower-Johnson Memorial Tunnels and the Twin Tunnels. The six-lane highway widening improvements included with the preferred alternative maximum program have both 55 miles per hour (mph) and 65 mph design options. The 55 mph option would use the existing I-70 alignment. The 65 mph design would require additional tunnels at Dowd Canyon, Hidden Valley, and Floyd Hill. At Dowd Canyon, two tunnels would be required for eastbound and westbound traffic. The preferred alternative identifies a minimum and maximum range of multi-modal improvements ranging in cost from $16.1 billion to $20.2 billion estimated in year of expenditure dollars and assuming the mid year of construction for the whole alternative is 2025. The 21 action alternatives evaluated in this document range in cost from $1.9 billion to $20.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Improvements would increase capacity, improve accessibility and mobility, and decrease congestion for travel demand to destinations along the I-70 Mountain Corridor as well as for interstate travel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Automobile and truck traffic would continue to degrade air quality, displace key wildlife habitat, and impede and endanger wildlife movements. Contamination from vehicles which then is washed into nearby streams would impact water quality. Under the preferred alternative, the increase in runoff would range from 16 percent to 24 percent. Removal, modification or disturbance of habitat for aquatic species would occur. Historic resources that could be affected include several nationally significant properties, including the Georgetown-Silver Plume National Historic Landmark District and as many as 75 different historic properties. Geologic hazards would need careful examination during Tier 2 processes to locate and design improvements to minimize effects. The preferred alternative would affect between 65 and 90 recreation sites. Transportation energy consumption would increase significantly, particularly under modal options involving highways. 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.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the original and revised draft EISs, see 05-0396D, Volume 29, Number 3 and 10-0498D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110073, Final EIS--527 pages, Appendices--855 pages, Technical Reports--6 volumes, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cost Assessments KW - Energy Consumption KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Colorado 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 - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128036?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-70+MOUNTAIN+CORRIDOR%2C+GARFIELD%2C+EAGLE%2C+SUMMIT%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-70+MOUNTAIN+CORRIDOR%2C+GARFIELD%2C+EAGLE%2C+SUMMIT%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 61 of 68] T2 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 873127944; 14827-1_0061 AB - PURPOSE: The mining of phosphate ore at the Blackfoot Bridge Mine, located 10 miles northeast of Soda Springs in Caribou County, Idaho is proposed. P4 Production, LLC (P4), a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto Company, Inc., submitted an initial mine and reclamation plan in November 2005 and a revised plan in October 2008. The revised plan proposes a new open pit phosphate mining operation on federal mineral leases that would include external overburden piles, a haul road, and a water management plan. Under the proposed action, phosphate ore would be mined and hauled eight miles to P4's Soda Springs elemental phosphorous plant for processing. No processing other than typical crushing and screening operations would occur at the mine site and all chemical processing activities would occur at the Soda Springs plant. The Blackfoot Bridge Mine ore reserve would be developed using an open pit mining method on a series of bench cuts, using a combination of in-pit retreating ramps and backfill ramps. The primary equipment for ore and overburden mining would be a combination of trucks, track-mounted excavators, bulldozers, and front-end loaders. A track-hoe excavator would also be used to maximize recovery of ore in the bottom of the pit. The project would be mined in a phased approach with mining and reclamation activities continuing for 17 years. Ore would be recovered from three mine pits beginning in Mid Pit, followed by the North Pit and South Pit. All overburden would either be backfilled into mined-out portions of the mine pits or placed in the external east overburden pile or northwest overburden pile. Facilities would include: 1) an ore stockpile and truck loading area; 2) an ore truck turnaround loop and equipment yard; 3) two water management ponds and other water control structures; 4) topsoil stockpiles; 5) sediment control dams; 6) roads; and 7) sediment control structures. A surface water diversion ditch would be constructed from the unnamed tributary to Fish Pond to the water management ponds. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, a layer of impermeable material would be constructed between the segregated Meade Peak overburden and the applied growth medium to eliminate potential effects of water infiltrating into the backfilled pits and external overburden piles. Alternative 1A, which is the preferred alternative, would use a geosynthetic clay laminate layer (GCLL) cover system over core materials in the east overburden pile and overburden pits. Alternative 1B would use a GCLL over the entire east overburden pile and overburden pits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would ensure economically viable development of phosphate resources and allow the lessee to exercise its right to develop those resources. Reduced infiltration of precipitation into the backfilled overburden and east overburden pile would reduce the concentration of selenium and constituents of particular concern in groundwater that discharges to the Blackfoot River to levels that would meet local water quality standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of 91 million bank cubic yards of overburden would disturb soils, increase erosion and sediment transport rates, and result in the loss of 99 acres of wildlife habitat and of 9.4 acres of wetlands. Mining would result in release of selenium and trace metals and groundwater quality would be potentially impacted by seepage from the proposed overburden piles and backfilled pits. Construction of facilities would have effects on topography and stability of the landscape. Surface disturbance would total 739 acres and 65 acres not reclaimed would represent long-term modification. Annual fugitive dust emissions from mining operations would be 138 tons per year. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, potential reduction in groundwater levels would be greater than that predicted under the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0265D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110071, 921 pages and maps, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 61 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-ID-320-2006-EIS-1553 KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Diversion Structures KW - Emissions KW - Erosion KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Phosphates KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Soils KW - Water Quality KW - Idaho KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127944?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 59 of 68] T2 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 873127937; 14827-1_0059 AB - PURPOSE: The mining of phosphate ore at the Blackfoot Bridge Mine, located 10 miles northeast of Soda Springs in Caribou County, Idaho is proposed. P4 Production, LLC (P4), a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto Company, Inc., submitted an initial mine and reclamation plan in November 2005 and a revised plan in October 2008. The revised plan proposes a new open pit phosphate mining operation on federal mineral leases that would include external overburden piles, a haul road, and a water management plan. Under the proposed action, phosphate ore would be mined and hauled eight miles to P4's Soda Springs elemental phosphorous plant for processing. No processing other than typical crushing and screening operations would occur at the mine site and all chemical processing activities would occur at the Soda Springs plant. The Blackfoot Bridge Mine ore reserve would be developed using an open pit mining method on a series of bench cuts, using a combination of in-pit retreating ramps and backfill ramps. The primary equipment for ore and overburden mining would be a combination of trucks, track-mounted excavators, bulldozers, and front-end loaders. A track-hoe excavator would also be used to maximize recovery of ore in the bottom of the pit. The project would be mined in a phased approach with mining and reclamation activities continuing for 17 years. Ore would be recovered from three mine pits beginning in Mid Pit, followed by the North Pit and South Pit. All overburden would either be backfilled into mined-out portions of the mine pits or placed in the external east overburden pile or northwest overburden pile. Facilities would include: 1) an ore stockpile and truck loading area; 2) an ore truck turnaround loop and equipment yard; 3) two water management ponds and other water control structures; 4) topsoil stockpiles; 5) sediment control dams; 6) roads; and 7) sediment control structures. A surface water diversion ditch would be constructed from the unnamed tributary to Fish Pond to the water management ponds. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, a layer of impermeable material would be constructed between the segregated Meade Peak overburden and the applied growth medium to eliminate potential effects of water infiltrating into the backfilled pits and external overburden piles. Alternative 1A, which is the preferred alternative, would use a geosynthetic clay laminate layer (GCLL) cover system over core materials in the east overburden pile and overburden pits. Alternative 1B would use a GCLL over the entire east overburden pile and overburden pits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would ensure economically viable development of phosphate resources and allow the lessee to exercise its right to develop those resources. Reduced infiltration of precipitation into the backfilled overburden and east overburden pile would reduce the concentration of selenium and constituents of particular concern in groundwater that discharges to the Blackfoot River to levels that would meet local water quality standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of 91 million bank cubic yards of overburden would disturb soils, increase erosion and sediment transport rates, and result in the loss of 99 acres of wildlife habitat and of 9.4 acres of wetlands. Mining would result in release of selenium and trace metals and groundwater quality would be potentially impacted by seepage from the proposed overburden piles and backfilled pits. Construction of facilities would have effects on topography and stability of the landscape. Surface disturbance would total 739 acres and 65 acres not reclaimed would represent long-term modification. Annual fugitive dust emissions from mining operations would be 138 tons per year. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, potential reduction in groundwater levels would be greater than that predicted under the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0265D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110071, 921 pages and maps, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 59 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-ID-320-2006-EIS-1553 KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Diversion Structures KW - Emissions KW - Erosion KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Phosphates KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Soils KW - Water Quality KW - Idaho KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127937?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 42 of 68] T2 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 873127931; 14827-1_0042 AB - PURPOSE: The mining of phosphate ore at the Blackfoot Bridge Mine, located 10 miles northeast of Soda Springs in Caribou County, Idaho is proposed. P4 Production, LLC (P4), a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto Company, Inc., submitted an initial mine and reclamation plan in November 2005 and a revised plan in October 2008. The revised plan proposes a new open pit phosphate mining operation on federal mineral leases that would include external overburden piles, a haul road, and a water management plan. Under the proposed action, phosphate ore would be mined and hauled eight miles to P4's Soda Springs elemental phosphorous plant for processing. No processing other than typical crushing and screening operations would occur at the mine site and all chemical processing activities would occur at the Soda Springs plant. The Blackfoot Bridge Mine ore reserve would be developed using an open pit mining method on a series of bench cuts, using a combination of in-pit retreating ramps and backfill ramps. The primary equipment for ore and overburden mining would be a combination of trucks, track-mounted excavators, bulldozers, and front-end loaders. A track-hoe excavator would also be used to maximize recovery of ore in the bottom of the pit. The project would be mined in a phased approach with mining and reclamation activities continuing for 17 years. Ore would be recovered from three mine pits beginning in Mid Pit, followed by the North Pit and South Pit. All overburden would either be backfilled into mined-out portions of the mine pits or placed in the external east overburden pile or northwest overburden pile. Facilities would include: 1) an ore stockpile and truck loading area; 2) an ore truck turnaround loop and equipment yard; 3) two water management ponds and other water control structures; 4) topsoil stockpiles; 5) sediment control dams; 6) roads; and 7) sediment control structures. A surface water diversion ditch would be constructed from the unnamed tributary to Fish Pond to the water management ponds. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, a layer of impermeable material would be constructed between the segregated Meade Peak overburden and the applied growth medium to eliminate potential effects of water infiltrating into the backfilled pits and external overburden piles. Alternative 1A, which is the preferred alternative, would use a geosynthetic clay laminate layer (GCLL) cover system over core materials in the east overburden pile and overburden pits. Alternative 1B would use a GCLL over the entire east overburden pile and overburden pits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would ensure economically viable development of phosphate resources and allow the lessee to exercise its right to develop those resources. Reduced infiltration of precipitation into the backfilled overburden and east overburden pile would reduce the concentration of selenium and constituents of particular concern in groundwater that discharges to the Blackfoot River to levels that would meet local water quality standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of 91 million bank cubic yards of overburden would disturb soils, increase erosion and sediment transport rates, and result in the loss of 99 acres of wildlife habitat and of 9.4 acres of wetlands. Mining would result in release of selenium and trace metals and groundwater quality would be potentially impacted by seepage from the proposed overburden piles and backfilled pits. Construction of facilities would have effects on topography and stability of the landscape. Surface disturbance would total 739 acres and 65 acres not reclaimed would represent long-term modification. Annual fugitive dust emissions from mining operations would be 138 tons per year. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, potential reduction in groundwater levels would be greater than that predicted under the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0265D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110071, 921 pages and maps, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 42 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-ID-320-2006-EIS-1553 KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Diversion Structures KW - Emissions KW - Erosion KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Phosphates KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Soils KW - Water Quality KW - Idaho KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127931?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 41 of 68] T2 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 873127928; 14827-1_0041 AB - PURPOSE: The mining of phosphate ore at the Blackfoot Bridge Mine, located 10 miles northeast of Soda Springs in Caribou County, Idaho is proposed. P4 Production, LLC (P4), a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto Company, Inc., submitted an initial mine and reclamation plan in November 2005 and a revised plan in October 2008. The revised plan proposes a new open pit phosphate mining operation on federal mineral leases that would include external overburden piles, a haul road, and a water management plan. Under the proposed action, phosphate ore would be mined and hauled eight miles to P4's Soda Springs elemental phosphorous plant for processing. No processing other than typical crushing and screening operations would occur at the mine site and all chemical processing activities would occur at the Soda Springs plant. The Blackfoot Bridge Mine ore reserve would be developed using an open pit mining method on a series of bench cuts, using a combination of in-pit retreating ramps and backfill ramps. The primary equipment for ore and overburden mining would be a combination of trucks, track-mounted excavators, bulldozers, and front-end loaders. A track-hoe excavator would also be used to maximize recovery of ore in the bottom of the pit. The project would be mined in a phased approach with mining and reclamation activities continuing for 17 years. Ore would be recovered from three mine pits beginning in Mid Pit, followed by the North Pit and South Pit. All overburden would either be backfilled into mined-out portions of the mine pits or placed in the external east overburden pile or northwest overburden pile. Facilities would include: 1) an ore stockpile and truck loading area; 2) an ore truck turnaround loop and equipment yard; 3) two water management ponds and other water control structures; 4) topsoil stockpiles; 5) sediment control dams; 6) roads; and 7) sediment control structures. A surface water diversion ditch would be constructed from the unnamed tributary to Fish Pond to the water management ponds. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, a layer of impermeable material would be constructed between the segregated Meade Peak overburden and the applied growth medium to eliminate potential effects of water infiltrating into the backfilled pits and external overburden piles. Alternative 1A, which is the preferred alternative, would use a geosynthetic clay laminate layer (GCLL) cover system over core materials in the east overburden pile and overburden pits. Alternative 1B would use a GCLL over the entire east overburden pile and overburden pits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would ensure economically viable development of phosphate resources and allow the lessee to exercise its right to develop those resources. Reduced infiltration of precipitation into the backfilled overburden and east overburden pile would reduce the concentration of selenium and constituents of particular concern in groundwater that discharges to the Blackfoot River to levels that would meet local water quality standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of 91 million bank cubic yards of overburden would disturb soils, increase erosion and sediment transport rates, and result in the loss of 99 acres of wildlife habitat and of 9.4 acres of wetlands. Mining would result in release of selenium and trace metals and groundwater quality would be potentially impacted by seepage from the proposed overburden piles and backfilled pits. Construction of facilities would have effects on topography and stability of the landscape. Surface disturbance would total 739 acres and 65 acres not reclaimed would represent long-term modification. Annual fugitive dust emissions from mining operations would be 138 tons per year. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, potential reduction in groundwater levels would be greater than that predicted under the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0265D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110071, 921 pages and maps, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 41 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-ID-320-2006-EIS-1553 KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Diversion Structures KW - Emissions KW - Erosion KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Phosphates KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Soils KW - Water Quality KW - Idaho KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127928?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 40 of 68] T2 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 873127916; 14827-1_0040 AB - PURPOSE: The mining of phosphate ore at the Blackfoot Bridge Mine, located 10 miles northeast of Soda Springs in Caribou County, Idaho is proposed. P4 Production, LLC (P4), a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto Company, Inc., submitted an initial mine and reclamation plan in November 2005 and a revised plan in October 2008. The revised plan proposes a new open pit phosphate mining operation on federal mineral leases that would include external overburden piles, a haul road, and a water management plan. Under the proposed action, phosphate ore would be mined and hauled eight miles to P4's Soda Springs elemental phosphorous plant for processing. No processing other than typical crushing and screening operations would occur at the mine site and all chemical processing activities would occur at the Soda Springs plant. The Blackfoot Bridge Mine ore reserve would be developed using an open pit mining method on a series of bench cuts, using a combination of in-pit retreating ramps and backfill ramps. The primary equipment for ore and overburden mining would be a combination of trucks, track-mounted excavators, bulldozers, and front-end loaders. A track-hoe excavator would also be used to maximize recovery of ore in the bottom of the pit. The project would be mined in a phased approach with mining and reclamation activities continuing for 17 years. Ore would be recovered from three mine pits beginning in Mid Pit, followed by the North Pit and South Pit. All overburden would either be backfilled into mined-out portions of the mine pits or placed in the external east overburden pile or northwest overburden pile. Facilities would include: 1) an ore stockpile and truck loading area; 2) an ore truck turnaround loop and equipment yard; 3) two water management ponds and other water control structures; 4) topsoil stockpiles; 5) sediment control dams; 6) roads; and 7) sediment control structures. A surface water diversion ditch would be constructed from the unnamed tributary to Fish Pond to the water management ponds. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, a layer of impermeable material would be constructed between the segregated Meade Peak overburden and the applied growth medium to eliminate potential effects of water infiltrating into the backfilled pits and external overburden piles. Alternative 1A, which is the preferred alternative, would use a geosynthetic clay laminate layer (GCLL) cover system over core materials in the east overburden pile and overburden pits. Alternative 1B would use a GCLL over the entire east overburden pile and overburden pits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would ensure economically viable development of phosphate resources and allow the lessee to exercise its right to develop those resources. Reduced infiltration of precipitation into the backfilled overburden and east overburden pile would reduce the concentration of selenium and constituents of particular concern in groundwater that discharges to the Blackfoot River to levels that would meet local water quality standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of 91 million bank cubic yards of overburden would disturb soils, increase erosion and sediment transport rates, and result in the loss of 99 acres of wildlife habitat and of 9.4 acres of wetlands. Mining would result in release of selenium and trace metals and groundwater quality would be potentially impacted by seepage from the proposed overburden piles and backfilled pits. Construction of facilities would have effects on topography and stability of the landscape. Surface disturbance would total 739 acres and 65 acres not reclaimed would represent long-term modification. Annual fugitive dust emissions from mining operations would be 138 tons per year. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, potential reduction in groundwater levels would be greater than that predicted under the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0265D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110071, 921 pages and maps, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 40 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-ID-320-2006-EIS-1553 KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Diversion Structures KW - Emissions KW - Erosion KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Phosphates KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Soils KW - Water Quality KW - Idaho KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127916?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 39 of 68] T2 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 873127906; 14827-1_0039 AB - PURPOSE: The mining of phosphate ore at the Blackfoot Bridge Mine, located 10 miles northeast of Soda Springs in Caribou County, Idaho is proposed. P4 Production, LLC (P4), a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto Company, Inc., submitted an initial mine and reclamation plan in November 2005 and a revised plan in October 2008. The revised plan proposes a new open pit phosphate mining operation on federal mineral leases that would include external overburden piles, a haul road, and a water management plan. Under the proposed action, phosphate ore would be mined and hauled eight miles to P4's Soda Springs elemental phosphorous plant for processing. No processing other than typical crushing and screening operations would occur at the mine site and all chemical processing activities would occur at the Soda Springs plant. The Blackfoot Bridge Mine ore reserve would be developed using an open pit mining method on a series of bench cuts, using a combination of in-pit retreating ramps and backfill ramps. The primary equipment for ore and overburden mining would be a combination of trucks, track-mounted excavators, bulldozers, and front-end loaders. A track-hoe excavator would also be used to maximize recovery of ore in the bottom of the pit. The project would be mined in a phased approach with mining and reclamation activities continuing for 17 years. Ore would be recovered from three mine pits beginning in Mid Pit, followed by the North Pit and South Pit. All overburden would either be backfilled into mined-out portions of the mine pits or placed in the external east overburden pile or northwest overburden pile. Facilities would include: 1) an ore stockpile and truck loading area; 2) an ore truck turnaround loop and equipment yard; 3) two water management ponds and other water control structures; 4) topsoil stockpiles; 5) sediment control dams; 6) roads; and 7) sediment control structures. A surface water diversion ditch would be constructed from the unnamed tributary to Fish Pond to the water management ponds. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, a layer of impermeable material would be constructed between the segregated Meade Peak overburden and the applied growth medium to eliminate potential effects of water infiltrating into the backfilled pits and external overburden piles. Alternative 1A, which is the preferred alternative, would use a geosynthetic clay laminate layer (GCLL) cover system over core materials in the east overburden pile and overburden pits. Alternative 1B would use a GCLL over the entire east overburden pile and overburden pits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would ensure economically viable development of phosphate resources and allow the lessee to exercise its right to develop those resources. Reduced infiltration of precipitation into the backfilled overburden and east overburden pile would reduce the concentration of selenium and constituents of particular concern in groundwater that discharges to the Blackfoot River to levels that would meet local water quality standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of 91 million bank cubic yards of overburden would disturb soils, increase erosion and sediment transport rates, and result in the loss of 99 acres of wildlife habitat and of 9.4 acres of wetlands. Mining would result in release of selenium and trace metals and groundwater quality would be potentially impacted by seepage from the proposed overburden piles and backfilled pits. Construction of facilities would have effects on topography and stability of the landscape. Surface disturbance would total 739 acres and 65 acres not reclaimed would represent long-term modification. Annual fugitive dust emissions from mining operations would be 138 tons per year. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, potential reduction in groundwater levels would be greater than that predicted under the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0265D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110071, 921 pages and maps, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 39 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-ID-320-2006-EIS-1553 KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Diversion Structures KW - Emissions KW - Erosion KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Phosphates KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Soils KW - Water Quality KW - Idaho KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127906?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 35 of 68] T2 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 873127902; 14827-1_0035 AB - PURPOSE: The mining of phosphate ore at the Blackfoot Bridge Mine, located 10 miles northeast of Soda Springs in Caribou County, Idaho is proposed. P4 Production, LLC (P4), a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto Company, Inc., submitted an initial mine and reclamation plan in November 2005 and a revised plan in October 2008. The revised plan proposes a new open pit phosphate mining operation on federal mineral leases that would include external overburden piles, a haul road, and a water management plan. Under the proposed action, phosphate ore would be mined and hauled eight miles to P4's Soda Springs elemental phosphorous plant for processing. No processing other than typical crushing and screening operations would occur at the mine site and all chemical processing activities would occur at the Soda Springs plant. The Blackfoot Bridge Mine ore reserve would be developed using an open pit mining method on a series of bench cuts, using a combination of in-pit retreating ramps and backfill ramps. The primary equipment for ore and overburden mining would be a combination of trucks, track-mounted excavators, bulldozers, and front-end loaders. A track-hoe excavator would also be used to maximize recovery of ore in the bottom of the pit. The project would be mined in a phased approach with mining and reclamation activities continuing for 17 years. Ore would be recovered from three mine pits beginning in Mid Pit, followed by the North Pit and South Pit. All overburden would either be backfilled into mined-out portions of the mine pits or placed in the external east overburden pile or northwest overburden pile. Facilities would include: 1) an ore stockpile and truck loading area; 2) an ore truck turnaround loop and equipment yard; 3) two water management ponds and other water control structures; 4) topsoil stockpiles; 5) sediment control dams; 6) roads; and 7) sediment control structures. A surface water diversion ditch would be constructed from the unnamed tributary to Fish Pond to the water management ponds. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, a layer of impermeable material would be constructed between the segregated Meade Peak overburden and the applied growth medium to eliminate potential effects of water infiltrating into the backfilled pits and external overburden piles. Alternative 1A, which is the preferred alternative, would use a geosynthetic clay laminate layer (GCLL) cover system over core materials in the east overburden pile and overburden pits. Alternative 1B would use a GCLL over the entire east overburden pile and overburden pits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would ensure economically viable development of phosphate resources and allow the lessee to exercise its right to develop those resources. Reduced infiltration of precipitation into the backfilled overburden and east overburden pile would reduce the concentration of selenium and constituents of particular concern in groundwater that discharges to the Blackfoot River to levels that would meet local water quality standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of 91 million bank cubic yards of overburden would disturb soils, increase erosion and sediment transport rates, and result in the loss of 99 acres of wildlife habitat and of 9.4 acres of wetlands. Mining would result in release of selenium and trace metals and groundwater quality would be potentially impacted by seepage from the proposed overburden piles and backfilled pits. Construction of facilities would have effects on topography and stability of the landscape. Surface disturbance would total 739 acres and 65 acres not reclaimed would represent long-term modification. Annual fugitive dust emissions from mining operations would be 138 tons per year. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, potential reduction in groundwater levels would be greater than that predicted under the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0265D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110071, 921 pages and maps, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 35 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-ID-320-2006-EIS-1553 KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Diversion Structures KW - Emissions KW - Erosion KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Phosphates KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Soils KW - Water Quality KW - Idaho KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127902?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 19 of 68] T2 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 873127896; 14827-1_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The mining of phosphate ore at the Blackfoot Bridge Mine, located 10 miles northeast of Soda Springs in Caribou County, Idaho is proposed. P4 Production, LLC (P4), a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto Company, Inc., submitted an initial mine and reclamation plan in November 2005 and a revised plan in October 2008. The revised plan proposes a new open pit phosphate mining operation on federal mineral leases that would include external overburden piles, a haul road, and a water management plan. Under the proposed action, phosphate ore would be mined and hauled eight miles to P4's Soda Springs elemental phosphorous plant for processing. No processing other than typical crushing and screening operations would occur at the mine site and all chemical processing activities would occur at the Soda Springs plant. The Blackfoot Bridge Mine ore reserve would be developed using an open pit mining method on a series of bench cuts, using a combination of in-pit retreating ramps and backfill ramps. The primary equipment for ore and overburden mining would be a combination of trucks, track-mounted excavators, bulldozers, and front-end loaders. A track-hoe excavator would also be used to maximize recovery of ore in the bottom of the pit. The project would be mined in a phased approach with mining and reclamation activities continuing for 17 years. Ore would be recovered from three mine pits beginning in Mid Pit, followed by the North Pit and South Pit. All overburden would either be backfilled into mined-out portions of the mine pits or placed in the external east overburden pile or northwest overburden pile. Facilities would include: 1) an ore stockpile and truck loading area; 2) an ore truck turnaround loop and equipment yard; 3) two water management ponds and other water control structures; 4) topsoil stockpiles; 5) sediment control dams; 6) roads; and 7) sediment control structures. A surface water diversion ditch would be constructed from the unnamed tributary to Fish Pond to the water management ponds. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, a layer of impermeable material would be constructed between the segregated Meade Peak overburden and the applied growth medium to eliminate potential effects of water infiltrating into the backfilled pits and external overburden piles. Alternative 1A, which is the preferred alternative, would use a geosynthetic clay laminate layer (GCLL) cover system over core materials in the east overburden pile and overburden pits. Alternative 1B would use a GCLL over the entire east overburden pile and overburden pits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would ensure economically viable development of phosphate resources and allow the lessee to exercise its right to develop those resources. Reduced infiltration of precipitation into the backfilled overburden and east overburden pile would reduce the concentration of selenium and constituents of particular concern in groundwater that discharges to the Blackfoot River to levels that would meet local water quality standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of 91 million bank cubic yards of overburden would disturb soils, increase erosion and sediment transport rates, and result in the loss of 99 acres of wildlife habitat and of 9.4 acres of wetlands. Mining would result in release of selenium and trace metals and groundwater quality would be potentially impacted by seepage from the proposed overburden piles and backfilled pits. Construction of facilities would have effects on topography and stability of the landscape. Surface disturbance would total 739 acres and 65 acres not reclaimed would represent long-term modification. Annual fugitive dust emissions from mining operations would be 138 tons per year. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, potential reduction in groundwater levels would be greater than that predicted under the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0265D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110071, 921 pages and maps, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 19 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-ID-320-2006-EIS-1553 KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Diversion Structures KW - Emissions KW - Erosion KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Phosphates KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Soils KW - Water Quality KW - Idaho KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127896?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 18 of 68] T2 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 873127885; 14827-1_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The mining of phosphate ore at the Blackfoot Bridge Mine, located 10 miles northeast of Soda Springs in Caribou County, Idaho is proposed. P4 Production, LLC (P4), a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto Company, Inc., submitted an initial mine and reclamation plan in November 2005 and a revised plan in October 2008. The revised plan proposes a new open pit phosphate mining operation on federal mineral leases that would include external overburden piles, a haul road, and a water management plan. Under the proposed action, phosphate ore would be mined and hauled eight miles to P4's Soda Springs elemental phosphorous plant for processing. No processing other than typical crushing and screening operations would occur at the mine site and all chemical processing activities would occur at the Soda Springs plant. The Blackfoot Bridge Mine ore reserve would be developed using an open pit mining method on a series of bench cuts, using a combination of in-pit retreating ramps and backfill ramps. The primary equipment for ore and overburden mining would be a combination of trucks, track-mounted excavators, bulldozers, and front-end loaders. A track-hoe excavator would also be used to maximize recovery of ore in the bottom of the pit. The project would be mined in a phased approach with mining and reclamation activities continuing for 17 years. Ore would be recovered from three mine pits beginning in Mid Pit, followed by the North Pit and South Pit. All overburden would either be backfilled into mined-out portions of the mine pits or placed in the external east overburden pile or northwest overburden pile. Facilities would include: 1) an ore stockpile and truck loading area; 2) an ore truck turnaround loop and equipment yard; 3) two water management ponds and other water control structures; 4) topsoil stockpiles; 5) sediment control dams; 6) roads; and 7) sediment control structures. A surface water diversion ditch would be constructed from the unnamed tributary to Fish Pond to the water management ponds. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, a layer of impermeable material would be constructed between the segregated Meade Peak overburden and the applied growth medium to eliminate potential effects of water infiltrating into the backfilled pits and external overburden piles. Alternative 1A, which is the preferred alternative, would use a geosynthetic clay laminate layer (GCLL) cover system over core materials in the east overburden pile and overburden pits. Alternative 1B would use a GCLL over the entire east overburden pile and overburden pits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would ensure economically viable development of phosphate resources and allow the lessee to exercise its right to develop those resources. Reduced infiltration of precipitation into the backfilled overburden and east overburden pile would reduce the concentration of selenium and constituents of particular concern in groundwater that discharges to the Blackfoot River to levels that would meet local water quality standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of 91 million bank cubic yards of overburden would disturb soils, increase erosion and sediment transport rates, and result in the loss of 99 acres of wildlife habitat and of 9.4 acres of wetlands. Mining would result in release of selenium and trace metals and groundwater quality would be potentially impacted by seepage from the proposed overburden piles and backfilled pits. Construction of facilities would have effects on topography and stability of the landscape. Surface disturbance would total 739 acres and 65 acres not reclaimed would represent long-term modification. Annual fugitive dust emissions from mining operations would be 138 tons per year. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, potential reduction in groundwater levels would be greater than that predicted under the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0265D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110071, 921 pages and maps, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 18 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-ID-320-2006-EIS-1553 KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Diversion Structures KW - Emissions KW - Erosion KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Phosphates KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Soils KW - Water Quality KW - Idaho KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127885?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 17 of 68] T2 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 873127879; 14827-1_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The mining of phosphate ore at the Blackfoot Bridge Mine, located 10 miles northeast of Soda Springs in Caribou County, Idaho is proposed. P4 Production, LLC (P4), a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto Company, Inc., submitted an initial mine and reclamation plan in November 2005 and a revised plan in October 2008. The revised plan proposes a new open pit phosphate mining operation on federal mineral leases that would include external overburden piles, a haul road, and a water management plan. Under the proposed action, phosphate ore would be mined and hauled eight miles to P4's Soda Springs elemental phosphorous plant for processing. No processing other than typical crushing and screening operations would occur at the mine site and all chemical processing activities would occur at the Soda Springs plant. The Blackfoot Bridge Mine ore reserve would be developed using an open pit mining method on a series of bench cuts, using a combination of in-pit retreating ramps and backfill ramps. The primary equipment for ore and overburden mining would be a combination of trucks, track-mounted excavators, bulldozers, and front-end loaders. A track-hoe excavator would also be used to maximize recovery of ore in the bottom of the pit. The project would be mined in a phased approach with mining and reclamation activities continuing for 17 years. Ore would be recovered from three mine pits beginning in Mid Pit, followed by the North Pit and South Pit. All overburden would either be backfilled into mined-out portions of the mine pits or placed in the external east overburden pile or northwest overburden pile. Facilities would include: 1) an ore stockpile and truck loading area; 2) an ore truck turnaround loop and equipment yard; 3) two water management ponds and other water control structures; 4) topsoil stockpiles; 5) sediment control dams; 6) roads; and 7) sediment control structures. A surface water diversion ditch would be constructed from the unnamed tributary to Fish Pond to the water management ponds. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, a layer of impermeable material would be constructed between the segregated Meade Peak overburden and the applied growth medium to eliminate potential effects of water infiltrating into the backfilled pits and external overburden piles. Alternative 1A, which is the preferred alternative, would use a geosynthetic clay laminate layer (GCLL) cover system over core materials in the east overburden pile and overburden pits. Alternative 1B would use a GCLL over the entire east overburden pile and overburden pits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would ensure economically viable development of phosphate resources and allow the lessee to exercise its right to develop those resources. Reduced infiltration of precipitation into the backfilled overburden and east overburden pile would reduce the concentration of selenium and constituents of particular concern in groundwater that discharges to the Blackfoot River to levels that would meet local water quality standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of 91 million bank cubic yards of overburden would disturb soils, increase erosion and sediment transport rates, and result in the loss of 99 acres of wildlife habitat and of 9.4 acres of wetlands. Mining would result in release of selenium and trace metals and groundwater quality would be potentially impacted by seepage from the proposed overburden piles and backfilled pits. Construction of facilities would have effects on topography and stability of the landscape. Surface disturbance would total 739 acres and 65 acres not reclaimed would represent long-term modification. Annual fugitive dust emissions from mining operations would be 138 tons per year. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, potential reduction in groundwater levels would be greater than that predicted under the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0265D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110071, 921 pages and maps, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 17 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-ID-320-2006-EIS-1553 KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Diversion Structures KW - Emissions KW - Erosion KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Phosphates KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Soils KW - Water Quality KW - Idaho KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127879?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 16 of 68] T2 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 873127873; 14827-1_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The mining of phosphate ore at the Blackfoot Bridge Mine, located 10 miles northeast of Soda Springs in Caribou County, Idaho is proposed. P4 Production, LLC (P4), a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto Company, Inc., submitted an initial mine and reclamation plan in November 2005 and a revised plan in October 2008. The revised plan proposes a new open pit phosphate mining operation on federal mineral leases that would include external overburden piles, a haul road, and a water management plan. Under the proposed action, phosphate ore would be mined and hauled eight miles to P4's Soda Springs elemental phosphorous plant for processing. No processing other than typical crushing and screening operations would occur at the mine site and all chemical processing activities would occur at the Soda Springs plant. The Blackfoot Bridge Mine ore reserve would be developed using an open pit mining method on a series of bench cuts, using a combination of in-pit retreating ramps and backfill ramps. The primary equipment for ore and overburden mining would be a combination of trucks, track-mounted excavators, bulldozers, and front-end loaders. A track-hoe excavator would also be used to maximize recovery of ore in the bottom of the pit. The project would be mined in a phased approach with mining and reclamation activities continuing for 17 years. Ore would be recovered from three mine pits beginning in Mid Pit, followed by the North Pit and South Pit. All overburden would either be backfilled into mined-out portions of the mine pits or placed in the external east overburden pile or northwest overburden pile. Facilities would include: 1) an ore stockpile and truck loading area; 2) an ore truck turnaround loop and equipment yard; 3) two water management ponds and other water control structures; 4) topsoil stockpiles; 5) sediment control dams; 6) roads; and 7) sediment control structures. A surface water diversion ditch would be constructed from the unnamed tributary to Fish Pond to the water management ponds. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, a layer of impermeable material would be constructed between the segregated Meade Peak overburden and the applied growth medium to eliminate potential effects of water infiltrating into the backfilled pits and external overburden piles. Alternative 1A, which is the preferred alternative, would use a geosynthetic clay laminate layer (GCLL) cover system over core materials in the east overburden pile and overburden pits. Alternative 1B would use a GCLL over the entire east overburden pile and overburden pits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would ensure economically viable development of phosphate resources and allow the lessee to exercise its right to develop those resources. Reduced infiltration of precipitation into the backfilled overburden and east overburden pile would reduce the concentration of selenium and constituents of particular concern in groundwater that discharges to the Blackfoot River to levels that would meet local water quality standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of 91 million bank cubic yards of overburden would disturb soils, increase erosion and sediment transport rates, and result in the loss of 99 acres of wildlife habitat and of 9.4 acres of wetlands. Mining would result in release of selenium and trace metals and groundwater quality would be potentially impacted by seepage from the proposed overburden piles and backfilled pits. Construction of facilities would have effects on topography and stability of the landscape. Surface disturbance would total 739 acres and 65 acres not reclaimed would represent long-term modification. Annual fugitive dust emissions from mining operations would be 138 tons per year. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, potential reduction in groundwater levels would be greater than that predicted under the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0265D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110071, 921 pages and maps, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 16 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-ID-320-2006-EIS-1553 KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Diversion Structures KW - Emissions KW - Erosion KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Phosphates KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Soils KW - Water Quality KW - Idaho KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127873?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 12 of 68] T2 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 873127865; 14827-1_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The mining of phosphate ore at the Blackfoot Bridge Mine, located 10 miles northeast of Soda Springs in Caribou County, Idaho is proposed. P4 Production, LLC (P4), a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto Company, Inc., submitted an initial mine and reclamation plan in November 2005 and a revised plan in October 2008. The revised plan proposes a new open pit phosphate mining operation on federal mineral leases that would include external overburden piles, a haul road, and a water management plan. Under the proposed action, phosphate ore would be mined and hauled eight miles to P4's Soda Springs elemental phosphorous plant for processing. No processing other than typical crushing and screening operations would occur at the mine site and all chemical processing activities would occur at the Soda Springs plant. The Blackfoot Bridge Mine ore reserve would be developed using an open pit mining method on a series of bench cuts, using a combination of in-pit retreating ramps and backfill ramps. The primary equipment for ore and overburden mining would be a combination of trucks, track-mounted excavators, bulldozers, and front-end loaders. A track-hoe excavator would also be used to maximize recovery of ore in the bottom of the pit. The project would be mined in a phased approach with mining and reclamation activities continuing for 17 years. Ore would be recovered from three mine pits beginning in Mid Pit, followed by the North Pit and South Pit. All overburden would either be backfilled into mined-out portions of the mine pits or placed in the external east overburden pile or northwest overburden pile. Facilities would include: 1) an ore stockpile and truck loading area; 2) an ore truck turnaround loop and equipment yard; 3) two water management ponds and other water control structures; 4) topsoil stockpiles; 5) sediment control dams; 6) roads; and 7) sediment control structures. A surface water diversion ditch would be constructed from the unnamed tributary to Fish Pond to the water management ponds. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, a layer of impermeable material would be constructed between the segregated Meade Peak overburden and the applied growth medium to eliminate potential effects of water infiltrating into the backfilled pits and external overburden piles. Alternative 1A, which is the preferred alternative, would use a geosynthetic clay laminate layer (GCLL) cover system over core materials in the east overburden pile and overburden pits. Alternative 1B would use a GCLL over the entire east overburden pile and overburden pits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would ensure economically viable development of phosphate resources and allow the lessee to exercise its right to develop those resources. Reduced infiltration of precipitation into the backfilled overburden and east overburden pile would reduce the concentration of selenium and constituents of particular concern in groundwater that discharges to the Blackfoot River to levels that would meet local water quality standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of 91 million bank cubic yards of overburden would disturb soils, increase erosion and sediment transport rates, and result in the loss of 99 acres of wildlife habitat and of 9.4 acres of wetlands. Mining would result in release of selenium and trace metals and groundwater quality would be potentially impacted by seepage from the proposed overburden piles and backfilled pits. Construction of facilities would have effects on topography and stability of the landscape. Surface disturbance would total 739 acres and 65 acres not reclaimed would represent long-term modification. Annual fugitive dust emissions from mining operations would be 138 tons per year. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, potential reduction in groundwater levels would be greater than that predicted under the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0265D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110071, 921 pages and maps, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-ID-320-2006-EIS-1553 KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Diversion Structures KW - Emissions KW - Erosion KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Phosphates KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Soils KW - Water Quality KW - Idaho KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127865?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 11 of 68] T2 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 873127857; 14827-1_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The mining of phosphate ore at the Blackfoot Bridge Mine, located 10 miles northeast of Soda Springs in Caribou County, Idaho is proposed. P4 Production, LLC (P4), a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto Company, Inc., submitted an initial mine and reclamation plan in November 2005 and a revised plan in October 2008. The revised plan proposes a new open pit phosphate mining operation on federal mineral leases that would include external overburden piles, a haul road, and a water management plan. Under the proposed action, phosphate ore would be mined and hauled eight miles to P4's Soda Springs elemental phosphorous plant for processing. No processing other than typical crushing and screening operations would occur at the mine site and all chemical processing activities would occur at the Soda Springs plant. The Blackfoot Bridge Mine ore reserve would be developed using an open pit mining method on a series of bench cuts, using a combination of in-pit retreating ramps and backfill ramps. The primary equipment for ore and overburden mining would be a combination of trucks, track-mounted excavators, bulldozers, and front-end loaders. A track-hoe excavator would also be used to maximize recovery of ore in the bottom of the pit. The project would be mined in a phased approach with mining and reclamation activities continuing for 17 years. Ore would be recovered from three mine pits beginning in Mid Pit, followed by the North Pit and South Pit. All overburden would either be backfilled into mined-out portions of the mine pits or placed in the external east overburden pile or northwest overburden pile. Facilities would include: 1) an ore stockpile and truck loading area; 2) an ore truck turnaround loop and equipment yard; 3) two water management ponds and other water control structures; 4) topsoil stockpiles; 5) sediment control dams; 6) roads; and 7) sediment control structures. A surface water diversion ditch would be constructed from the unnamed tributary to Fish Pond to the water management ponds. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, a layer of impermeable material would be constructed between the segregated Meade Peak overburden and the applied growth medium to eliminate potential effects of water infiltrating into the backfilled pits and external overburden piles. Alternative 1A, which is the preferred alternative, would use a geosynthetic clay laminate layer (GCLL) cover system over core materials in the east overburden pile and overburden pits. Alternative 1B would use a GCLL over the entire east overburden pile and overburden pits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would ensure economically viable development of phosphate resources and allow the lessee to exercise its right to develop those resources. Reduced infiltration of precipitation into the backfilled overburden and east overburden pile would reduce the concentration of selenium and constituents of particular concern in groundwater that discharges to the Blackfoot River to levels that would meet local water quality standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of 91 million bank cubic yards of overburden would disturb soils, increase erosion and sediment transport rates, and result in the loss of 99 acres of wildlife habitat and of 9.4 acres of wetlands. Mining would result in release of selenium and trace metals and groundwater quality would be potentially impacted by seepage from the proposed overburden piles and backfilled pits. Construction of facilities would have effects on topography and stability of the landscape. Surface disturbance would total 739 acres and 65 acres not reclaimed would represent long-term modification. Annual fugitive dust emissions from mining operations would be 138 tons per year. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, potential reduction in groundwater levels would be greater than that predicted under the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0265D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110071, 921 pages and maps, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-ID-320-2006-EIS-1553 KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Diversion Structures KW - Emissions KW - Erosion KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Phosphates KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Soils KW - Water Quality KW - Idaho KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127857?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 10 of 68] T2 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 873127847; 14827-1_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The mining of phosphate ore at the Blackfoot Bridge Mine, located 10 miles northeast of Soda Springs in Caribou County, Idaho is proposed. P4 Production, LLC (P4), a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto Company, Inc., submitted an initial mine and reclamation plan in November 2005 and a revised plan in October 2008. The revised plan proposes a new open pit phosphate mining operation on federal mineral leases that would include external overburden piles, a haul road, and a water management plan. Under the proposed action, phosphate ore would be mined and hauled eight miles to P4's Soda Springs elemental phosphorous plant for processing. No processing other than typical crushing and screening operations would occur at the mine site and all chemical processing activities would occur at the Soda Springs plant. The Blackfoot Bridge Mine ore reserve would be developed using an open pit mining method on a series of bench cuts, using a combination of in-pit retreating ramps and backfill ramps. The primary equipment for ore and overburden mining would be a combination of trucks, track-mounted excavators, bulldozers, and front-end loaders. A track-hoe excavator would also be used to maximize recovery of ore in the bottom of the pit. The project would be mined in a phased approach with mining and reclamation activities continuing for 17 years. Ore would be recovered from three mine pits beginning in Mid Pit, followed by the North Pit and South Pit. All overburden would either be backfilled into mined-out portions of the mine pits or placed in the external east overburden pile or northwest overburden pile. Facilities would include: 1) an ore stockpile and truck loading area; 2) an ore truck turnaround loop and equipment yard; 3) two water management ponds and other water control structures; 4) topsoil stockpiles; 5) sediment control dams; 6) roads; and 7) sediment control structures. A surface water diversion ditch would be constructed from the unnamed tributary to Fish Pond to the water management ponds. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, a layer of impermeable material would be constructed between the segregated Meade Peak overburden and the applied growth medium to eliminate potential effects of water infiltrating into the backfilled pits and external overburden piles. Alternative 1A, which is the preferred alternative, would use a geosynthetic clay laminate layer (GCLL) cover system over core materials in the east overburden pile and overburden pits. Alternative 1B would use a GCLL over the entire east overburden pile and overburden pits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would ensure economically viable development of phosphate resources and allow the lessee to exercise its right to develop those resources. Reduced infiltration of precipitation into the backfilled overburden and east overburden pile would reduce the concentration of selenium and constituents of particular concern in groundwater that discharges to the Blackfoot River to levels that would meet local water quality standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of 91 million bank cubic yards of overburden would disturb soils, increase erosion and sediment transport rates, and result in the loss of 99 acres of wildlife habitat and of 9.4 acres of wetlands. Mining would result in release of selenium and trace metals and groundwater quality would be potentially impacted by seepage from the proposed overburden piles and backfilled pits. Construction of facilities would have effects on topography and stability of the landscape. Surface disturbance would total 739 acres and 65 acres not reclaimed would represent long-term modification. Annual fugitive dust emissions from mining operations would be 138 tons per year. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, potential reduction in groundwater levels would be greater than that predicted under the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0265D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110071, 921 pages and maps, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-ID-320-2006-EIS-1553 KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Diversion Structures KW - Emissions KW - Erosion KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Phosphates KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Soils KW - Water Quality KW - Idaho KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127847?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 9 of 68] T2 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 873127838; 14827-1_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The mining of phosphate ore at the Blackfoot Bridge Mine, located 10 miles northeast of Soda Springs in Caribou County, Idaho is proposed. P4 Production, LLC (P4), a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto Company, Inc., submitted an initial mine and reclamation plan in November 2005 and a revised plan in October 2008. The revised plan proposes a new open pit phosphate mining operation on federal mineral leases that would include external overburden piles, a haul road, and a water management plan. Under the proposed action, phosphate ore would be mined and hauled eight miles to P4's Soda Springs elemental phosphorous plant for processing. No processing other than typical crushing and screening operations would occur at the mine site and all chemical processing activities would occur at the Soda Springs plant. The Blackfoot Bridge Mine ore reserve would be developed using an open pit mining method on a series of bench cuts, using a combination of in-pit retreating ramps and backfill ramps. The primary equipment for ore and overburden mining would be a combination of trucks, track-mounted excavators, bulldozers, and front-end loaders. A track-hoe excavator would also be used to maximize recovery of ore in the bottom of the pit. The project would be mined in a phased approach with mining and reclamation activities continuing for 17 years. Ore would be recovered from three mine pits beginning in Mid Pit, followed by the North Pit and South Pit. All overburden would either be backfilled into mined-out portions of the mine pits or placed in the external east overburden pile or northwest overburden pile. Facilities would include: 1) an ore stockpile and truck loading area; 2) an ore truck turnaround loop and equipment yard; 3) two water management ponds and other water control structures; 4) topsoil stockpiles; 5) sediment control dams; 6) roads; and 7) sediment control structures. A surface water diversion ditch would be constructed from the unnamed tributary to Fish Pond to the water management ponds. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, a layer of impermeable material would be constructed between the segregated Meade Peak overburden and the applied growth medium to eliminate potential effects of water infiltrating into the backfilled pits and external overburden piles. Alternative 1A, which is the preferred alternative, would use a geosynthetic clay laminate layer (GCLL) cover system over core materials in the east overburden pile and overburden pits. Alternative 1B would use a GCLL over the entire east overburden pile and overburden pits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would ensure economically viable development of phosphate resources and allow the lessee to exercise its right to develop those resources. Reduced infiltration of precipitation into the backfilled overburden and east overburden pile would reduce the concentration of selenium and constituents of particular concern in groundwater that discharges to the Blackfoot River to levels that would meet local water quality standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of 91 million bank cubic yards of overburden would disturb soils, increase erosion and sediment transport rates, and result in the loss of 99 acres of wildlife habitat and of 9.4 acres of wetlands. Mining would result in release of selenium and trace metals and groundwater quality would be potentially impacted by seepage from the proposed overburden piles and backfilled pits. Construction of facilities would have effects on topography and stability of the landscape. Surface disturbance would total 739 acres and 65 acres not reclaimed would represent long-term modification. Annual fugitive dust emissions from mining operations would be 138 tons per year. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, potential reduction in groundwater levels would be greater than that predicted under the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0265D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110071, 921 pages and maps, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-ID-320-2006-EIS-1553 KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Diversion Structures KW - Emissions KW - Erosion KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Phosphates KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Soils KW - Water Quality KW - Idaho KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127838?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 8 of 68] T2 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 873127831; 14827-1_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The mining of phosphate ore at the Blackfoot Bridge Mine, located 10 miles northeast of Soda Springs in Caribou County, Idaho is proposed. P4 Production, LLC (P4), a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto Company, Inc., submitted an initial mine and reclamation plan in November 2005 and a revised plan in October 2008. The revised plan proposes a new open pit phosphate mining operation on federal mineral leases that would include external overburden piles, a haul road, and a water management plan. Under the proposed action, phosphate ore would be mined and hauled eight miles to P4's Soda Springs elemental phosphorous plant for processing. No processing other than typical crushing and screening operations would occur at the mine site and all chemical processing activities would occur at the Soda Springs plant. The Blackfoot Bridge Mine ore reserve would be developed using an open pit mining method on a series of bench cuts, using a combination of in-pit retreating ramps and backfill ramps. The primary equipment for ore and overburden mining would be a combination of trucks, track-mounted excavators, bulldozers, and front-end loaders. A track-hoe excavator would also be used to maximize recovery of ore in the bottom of the pit. The project would be mined in a phased approach with mining and reclamation activities continuing for 17 years. Ore would be recovered from three mine pits beginning in Mid Pit, followed by the North Pit and South Pit. All overburden would either be backfilled into mined-out portions of the mine pits or placed in the external east overburden pile or northwest overburden pile. Facilities would include: 1) an ore stockpile and truck loading area; 2) an ore truck turnaround loop and equipment yard; 3) two water management ponds and other water control structures; 4) topsoil stockpiles; 5) sediment control dams; 6) roads; and 7) sediment control structures. A surface water diversion ditch would be constructed from the unnamed tributary to Fish Pond to the water management ponds. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, a layer of impermeable material would be constructed between the segregated Meade Peak overburden and the applied growth medium to eliminate potential effects of water infiltrating into the backfilled pits and external overburden piles. Alternative 1A, which is the preferred alternative, would use a geosynthetic clay laminate layer (GCLL) cover system over core materials in the east overburden pile and overburden pits. Alternative 1B would use a GCLL over the entire east overburden pile and overburden pits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would ensure economically viable development of phosphate resources and allow the lessee to exercise its right to develop those resources. Reduced infiltration of precipitation into the backfilled overburden and east overburden pile would reduce the concentration of selenium and constituents of particular concern in groundwater that discharges to the Blackfoot River to levels that would meet local water quality standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of 91 million bank cubic yards of overburden would disturb soils, increase erosion and sediment transport rates, and result in the loss of 99 acres of wildlife habitat and of 9.4 acres of wetlands. Mining would result in release of selenium and trace metals and groundwater quality would be potentially impacted by seepage from the proposed overburden piles and backfilled pits. Construction of facilities would have effects on topography and stability of the landscape. Surface disturbance would total 739 acres and 65 acres not reclaimed would represent long-term modification. Annual fugitive dust emissions from mining operations would be 138 tons per year. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, potential reduction in groundwater levels would be greater than that predicted under the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0265D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110071, 921 pages and maps, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-ID-320-2006-EIS-1553 KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Diversion Structures KW - Emissions KW - Erosion KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Phosphates KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Soils KW - Water Quality KW - Idaho KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127831?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 7 of 68] T2 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 873127821; 14827-1_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The mining of phosphate ore at the Blackfoot Bridge Mine, located 10 miles northeast of Soda Springs in Caribou County, Idaho is proposed. P4 Production, LLC (P4), a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto Company, Inc., submitted an initial mine and reclamation plan in November 2005 and a revised plan in October 2008. The revised plan proposes a new open pit phosphate mining operation on federal mineral leases that would include external overburden piles, a haul road, and a water management plan. Under the proposed action, phosphate ore would be mined and hauled eight miles to P4's Soda Springs elemental phosphorous plant for processing. No processing other than typical crushing and screening operations would occur at the mine site and all chemical processing activities would occur at the Soda Springs plant. The Blackfoot Bridge Mine ore reserve would be developed using an open pit mining method on a series of bench cuts, using a combination of in-pit retreating ramps and backfill ramps. The primary equipment for ore and overburden mining would be a combination of trucks, track-mounted excavators, bulldozers, and front-end loaders. A track-hoe excavator would also be used to maximize recovery of ore in the bottom of the pit. The project would be mined in a phased approach with mining and reclamation activities continuing for 17 years. Ore would be recovered from three mine pits beginning in Mid Pit, followed by the North Pit and South Pit. All overburden would either be backfilled into mined-out portions of the mine pits or placed in the external east overburden pile or northwest overburden pile. Facilities would include: 1) an ore stockpile and truck loading area; 2) an ore truck turnaround loop and equipment yard; 3) two water management ponds and other water control structures; 4) topsoil stockpiles; 5) sediment control dams; 6) roads; and 7) sediment control structures. A surface water diversion ditch would be constructed from the unnamed tributary to Fish Pond to the water management ponds. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, a layer of impermeable material would be constructed between the segregated Meade Peak overburden and the applied growth medium to eliminate potential effects of water infiltrating into the backfilled pits and external overburden piles. Alternative 1A, which is the preferred alternative, would use a geosynthetic clay laminate layer (GCLL) cover system over core materials in the east overburden pile and overburden pits. Alternative 1B would use a GCLL over the entire east overburden pile and overburden pits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would ensure economically viable development of phosphate resources and allow the lessee to exercise its right to develop those resources. Reduced infiltration of precipitation into the backfilled overburden and east overburden pile would reduce the concentration of selenium and constituents of particular concern in groundwater that discharges to the Blackfoot River to levels that would meet local water quality standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of 91 million bank cubic yards of overburden would disturb soils, increase erosion and sediment transport rates, and result in the loss of 99 acres of wildlife habitat and of 9.4 acres of wetlands. Mining would result in release of selenium and trace metals and groundwater quality would be potentially impacted by seepage from the proposed overburden piles and backfilled pits. Construction of facilities would have effects on topography and stability of the landscape. Surface disturbance would total 739 acres and 65 acres not reclaimed would represent long-term modification. Annual fugitive dust emissions from mining operations would be 138 tons per year. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, potential reduction in groundwater levels would be greater than that predicted under the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0265D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110071, 921 pages and maps, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-ID-320-2006-EIS-1553 KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Diversion Structures KW - Emissions KW - Erosion KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Phosphates KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Soils KW - Water Quality KW - Idaho KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127821?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 6 of 68] T2 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 873127816; 14827-1_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The mining of phosphate ore at the Blackfoot Bridge Mine, located 10 miles northeast of Soda Springs in Caribou County, Idaho is proposed. P4 Production, LLC (P4), a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto Company, Inc., submitted an initial mine and reclamation plan in November 2005 and a revised plan in October 2008. The revised plan proposes a new open pit phosphate mining operation on federal mineral leases that would include external overburden piles, a haul road, and a water management plan. Under the proposed action, phosphate ore would be mined and hauled eight miles to P4's Soda Springs elemental phosphorous plant for processing. No processing other than typical crushing and screening operations would occur at the mine site and all chemical processing activities would occur at the Soda Springs plant. The Blackfoot Bridge Mine ore reserve would be developed using an open pit mining method on a series of bench cuts, using a combination of in-pit retreating ramps and backfill ramps. The primary equipment for ore and overburden mining would be a combination of trucks, track-mounted excavators, bulldozers, and front-end loaders. A track-hoe excavator would also be used to maximize recovery of ore in the bottom of the pit. The project would be mined in a phased approach with mining and reclamation activities continuing for 17 years. Ore would be recovered from three mine pits beginning in Mid Pit, followed by the North Pit and South Pit. All overburden would either be backfilled into mined-out portions of the mine pits or placed in the external east overburden pile or northwest overburden pile. Facilities would include: 1) an ore stockpile and truck loading area; 2) an ore truck turnaround loop and equipment yard; 3) two water management ponds and other water control structures; 4) topsoil stockpiles; 5) sediment control dams; 6) roads; and 7) sediment control structures. A surface water diversion ditch would be constructed from the unnamed tributary to Fish Pond to the water management ponds. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, a layer of impermeable material would be constructed between the segregated Meade Peak overburden and the applied growth medium to eliminate potential effects of water infiltrating into the backfilled pits and external overburden piles. Alternative 1A, which is the preferred alternative, would use a geosynthetic clay laminate layer (GCLL) cover system over core materials in the east overburden pile and overburden pits. Alternative 1B would use a GCLL over the entire east overburden pile and overburden pits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would ensure economically viable development of phosphate resources and allow the lessee to exercise its right to develop those resources. Reduced infiltration of precipitation into the backfilled overburden and east overburden pile would reduce the concentration of selenium and constituents of particular concern in groundwater that discharges to the Blackfoot River to levels that would meet local water quality standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of 91 million bank cubic yards of overburden would disturb soils, increase erosion and sediment transport rates, and result in the loss of 99 acres of wildlife habitat and of 9.4 acres of wetlands. Mining would result in release of selenium and trace metals and groundwater quality would be potentially impacted by seepage from the proposed overburden piles and backfilled pits. Construction of facilities would have effects on topography and stability of the landscape. Surface disturbance would total 739 acres and 65 acres not reclaimed would represent long-term modification. Annual fugitive dust emissions from mining operations would be 138 tons per year. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, potential reduction in groundwater levels would be greater than that predicted under the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0265D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110071, 921 pages and maps, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-ID-320-2006-EIS-1553 KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Diversion Structures KW - Emissions KW - Erosion KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Phosphates KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Soils KW - Water Quality KW - Idaho KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127816?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR, GARFIELD, EAGLE, SUMMIT, CLEAR CREEK AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 33 of 39] T2 - I-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR, GARFIELD, EAGLE, SUMMIT, CLEAR CREEK AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 873127795; 14829-3_0033 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements along the 144-mile-long Interstate 70 (I-70) Mountain Corridor between Glenwood Springs and State Route 470 (C-470), Garfield, Eagle, Summit, Clear Creek and Jefferson counties, Colorado are proposed. The I-70 highway is the only east-west interstate to cross Colorado, directly serves more than 20 communities and a number of major ski resorts, provides access to the White River National Forest and the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests, and is an important freight corridor. Population growth in the Corridor and in the Denver metropolitan area has increased traffic volumes and recreational travelers currently experience substantial delays on weekends and holidays on the eastern side of the corridor while the western side experiences work trip delays during the week. This project began in 2000 and a revised programmatic draft EIS was issued in 2004. Twenty-one action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this first tier programmatic final EIS. The preferred alternative consists of near-term and general long-term improvements for the Corridor to meet the travel demand for 2050 and address immediate Corridor needs. To address future uncertainties, trigger points and stakeholder involvement would be used to reassess needs and to determine the most appropriate transportation improvements to meet future demand. The preferred alternative would implement a multimodal solution and include non-infrastructure related components, an advanced guideway system, and highway improvements. A specific advanced guideway system technology would be determined in subsequent study or a Tier 2 process and would be deployed to provide transit service from the Eagle County Regional Airport to C-470, a distance of 118 miles. It would be a fully elevated transit system on two tracks aligned to the north, south, or in the median of I-70. The system would connect to the regional transportation district network in Jefferson County and local and regional transit services at most of the 15 proposed transit stations along the route. The advanced guideway system would require new tunnel bores at both the Eisenhower-Johnson Memorial Tunnels and the Twin Tunnels. The six-lane highway widening improvements included with the preferred alternative maximum program have both 55 miles per hour (mph) and 65 mph design options. The 55 mph option would use the existing I-70 alignment. The 65 mph design would require additional tunnels at Dowd Canyon, Hidden Valley, and Floyd Hill. At Dowd Canyon, two tunnels would be required for eastbound and westbound traffic. The preferred alternative identifies a minimum and maximum range of multi-modal improvements ranging in cost from $16.1 billion to $20.2 billion estimated in year of expenditure dollars and assuming the mid year of construction for the whole alternative is 2025. The 21 action alternatives evaluated in this document range in cost from $1.9 billion to $20.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Improvements would increase capacity, improve accessibility and mobility, and decrease congestion for travel demand to destinations along the I-70 Mountain Corridor as well as for interstate travel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Automobile and truck traffic would continue to degrade air quality, displace key wildlife habitat, and impede and endanger wildlife movements. Contamination from vehicles which then is washed into nearby streams would impact water quality. Under the preferred alternative, the increase in runoff would range from 16 percent to 24 percent. Removal, modification or disturbance of habitat for aquatic species would occur. Historic resources that could be affected include several nationally significant properties, including the Georgetown-Silver Plume National Historic Landmark District and as many as 75 different historic properties. Geologic hazards would need careful examination during Tier 2 processes to locate and design improvements to minimize effects. The preferred alternative would affect between 65 and 90 recreation sites. Transportation energy consumption would increase significantly, particularly under modal options involving highways. 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.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the original and revised draft EISs, see 05-0396D, Volume 29, Number 3 and 10-0498D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110073, Final EIS--527 pages, Appendices--855 pages, Technical Reports--6 volumes, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 33 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cost Assessments KW - Energy Consumption KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Colorado 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 - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127795?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-70+MOUNTAIN+CORRIDOR%2C+GARFIELD%2C+EAGLE%2C+SUMMIT%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-70+MOUNTAIN+CORRIDOR%2C+GARFIELD%2C+EAGLE%2C+SUMMIT%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR, GARFIELD, EAGLE, SUMMIT, CLEAR CREEK AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 32 of 39] T2 - I-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR, GARFIELD, EAGLE, SUMMIT, CLEAR CREEK AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 873127793; 14829-3_0032 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements along the 144-mile-long Interstate 70 (I-70) Mountain Corridor between Glenwood Springs and State Route 470 (C-470), Garfield, Eagle, Summit, Clear Creek and Jefferson counties, Colorado are proposed. The I-70 highway is the only east-west interstate to cross Colorado, directly serves more than 20 communities and a number of major ski resorts, provides access to the White River National Forest and the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests, and is an important freight corridor. Population growth in the Corridor and in the Denver metropolitan area has increased traffic volumes and recreational travelers currently experience substantial delays on weekends and holidays on the eastern side of the corridor while the western side experiences work trip delays during the week. This project began in 2000 and a revised programmatic draft EIS was issued in 2004. Twenty-one action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this first tier programmatic final EIS. The preferred alternative consists of near-term and general long-term improvements for the Corridor to meet the travel demand for 2050 and address immediate Corridor needs. To address future uncertainties, trigger points and stakeholder involvement would be used to reassess needs and to determine the most appropriate transportation improvements to meet future demand. The preferred alternative would implement a multimodal solution and include non-infrastructure related components, an advanced guideway system, and highway improvements. A specific advanced guideway system technology would be determined in subsequent study or a Tier 2 process and would be deployed to provide transit service from the Eagle County Regional Airport to C-470, a distance of 118 miles. It would be a fully elevated transit system on two tracks aligned to the north, south, or in the median of I-70. The system would connect to the regional transportation district network in Jefferson County and local and regional transit services at most of the 15 proposed transit stations along the route. The advanced guideway system would require new tunnel bores at both the Eisenhower-Johnson Memorial Tunnels and the Twin Tunnels. The six-lane highway widening improvements included with the preferred alternative maximum program have both 55 miles per hour (mph) and 65 mph design options. The 55 mph option would use the existing I-70 alignment. The 65 mph design would require additional tunnels at Dowd Canyon, Hidden Valley, and Floyd Hill. At Dowd Canyon, two tunnels would be required for eastbound and westbound traffic. The preferred alternative identifies a minimum and maximum range of multi-modal improvements ranging in cost from $16.1 billion to $20.2 billion estimated in year of expenditure dollars and assuming the mid year of construction for the whole alternative is 2025. The 21 action alternatives evaluated in this document range in cost from $1.9 billion to $20.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Improvements would increase capacity, improve accessibility and mobility, and decrease congestion for travel demand to destinations along the I-70 Mountain Corridor as well as for interstate travel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Automobile and truck traffic would continue to degrade air quality, displace key wildlife habitat, and impede and endanger wildlife movements. Contamination from vehicles which then is washed into nearby streams would impact water quality. Under the preferred alternative, the increase in runoff would range from 16 percent to 24 percent. Removal, modification or disturbance of habitat for aquatic species would occur. Historic resources that could be affected include several nationally significant properties, including the Georgetown-Silver Plume National Historic Landmark District and as many as 75 different historic properties. Geologic hazards would need careful examination during Tier 2 processes to locate and design improvements to minimize effects. The preferred alternative would affect between 65 and 90 recreation sites. Transportation energy consumption would increase significantly, particularly under modal options involving highways. 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.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the original and revised draft EISs, see 05-0396D, Volume 29, Number 3 and 10-0498D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110073, Final EIS--527 pages, Appendices--855 pages, Technical Reports--6 volumes, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 32 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cost Assessments KW - Energy Consumption KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Colorado 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 - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127793?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-70+MOUNTAIN+CORRIDOR%2C+GARFIELD%2C+EAGLE%2C+SUMMIT%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-70+MOUNTAIN+CORRIDOR%2C+GARFIELD%2C+EAGLE%2C+SUMMIT%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR, GARFIELD, EAGLE, SUMMIT, CLEAR CREEK AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 31 of 39] T2 - I-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR, GARFIELD, EAGLE, SUMMIT, CLEAR CREEK AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 873127787; 14829-3_0031 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements along the 144-mile-long Interstate 70 (I-70) Mountain Corridor between Glenwood Springs and State Route 470 (C-470), Garfield, Eagle, Summit, Clear Creek and Jefferson counties, Colorado are proposed. The I-70 highway is the only east-west interstate to cross Colorado, directly serves more than 20 communities and a number of major ski resorts, provides access to the White River National Forest and the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests, and is an important freight corridor. Population growth in the Corridor and in the Denver metropolitan area has increased traffic volumes and recreational travelers currently experience substantial delays on weekends and holidays on the eastern side of the corridor while the western side experiences work trip delays during the week. This project began in 2000 and a revised programmatic draft EIS was issued in 2004. Twenty-one action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this first tier programmatic final EIS. The preferred alternative consists of near-term and general long-term improvements for the Corridor to meet the travel demand for 2050 and address immediate Corridor needs. To address future uncertainties, trigger points and stakeholder involvement would be used to reassess needs and to determine the most appropriate transportation improvements to meet future demand. The preferred alternative would implement a multimodal solution and include non-infrastructure related components, an advanced guideway system, and highway improvements. A specific advanced guideway system technology would be determined in subsequent study or a Tier 2 process and would be deployed to provide transit service from the Eagle County Regional Airport to C-470, a distance of 118 miles. It would be a fully elevated transit system on two tracks aligned to the north, south, or in the median of I-70. The system would connect to the regional transportation district network in Jefferson County and local and regional transit services at most of the 15 proposed transit stations along the route. The advanced guideway system would require new tunnel bores at both the Eisenhower-Johnson Memorial Tunnels and the Twin Tunnels. The six-lane highway widening improvements included with the preferred alternative maximum program have both 55 miles per hour (mph) and 65 mph design options. The 55 mph option would use the existing I-70 alignment. The 65 mph design would require additional tunnels at Dowd Canyon, Hidden Valley, and Floyd Hill. At Dowd Canyon, two tunnels would be required for eastbound and westbound traffic. The preferred alternative identifies a minimum and maximum range of multi-modal improvements ranging in cost from $16.1 billion to $20.2 billion estimated in year of expenditure dollars and assuming the mid year of construction for the whole alternative is 2025. The 21 action alternatives evaluated in this document range in cost from $1.9 billion to $20.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Improvements would increase capacity, improve accessibility and mobility, and decrease congestion for travel demand to destinations along the I-70 Mountain Corridor as well as for interstate travel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Automobile and truck traffic would continue to degrade air quality, displace key wildlife habitat, and impede and endanger wildlife movements. Contamination from vehicles which then is washed into nearby streams would impact water quality. Under the preferred alternative, the increase in runoff would range from 16 percent to 24 percent. Removal, modification or disturbance of habitat for aquatic species would occur. Historic resources that could be affected include several nationally significant properties, including the Georgetown-Silver Plume National Historic Landmark District and as many as 75 different historic properties. Geologic hazards would need careful examination during Tier 2 processes to locate and design improvements to minimize effects. The preferred alternative would affect between 65 and 90 recreation sites. Transportation energy consumption would increase significantly, particularly under modal options involving highways. 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.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the original and revised draft EISs, see 05-0396D, Volume 29, Number 3 and 10-0498D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110073, Final EIS--527 pages, Appendices--855 pages, Technical Reports--6 volumes, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 31 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cost Assessments KW - Energy Consumption KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Colorado 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 - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127787?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-70+MOUNTAIN+CORRIDOR%2C+GARFIELD%2C+EAGLE%2C+SUMMIT%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-70+MOUNTAIN+CORRIDOR%2C+GARFIELD%2C+EAGLE%2C+SUMMIT%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR, GARFIELD, EAGLE, SUMMIT, CLEAR CREEK AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 30 of 39] T2 - I-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR, GARFIELD, EAGLE, SUMMIT, CLEAR CREEK AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 873127780; 14829-3_0030 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements along the 144-mile-long Interstate 70 (I-70) Mountain Corridor between Glenwood Springs and State Route 470 (C-470), Garfield, Eagle, Summit, Clear Creek and Jefferson counties, Colorado are proposed. The I-70 highway is the only east-west interstate to cross Colorado, directly serves more than 20 communities and a number of major ski resorts, provides access to the White River National Forest and the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests, and is an important freight corridor. Population growth in the Corridor and in the Denver metropolitan area has increased traffic volumes and recreational travelers currently experience substantial delays on weekends and holidays on the eastern side of the corridor while the western side experiences work trip delays during the week. This project began in 2000 and a revised programmatic draft EIS was issued in 2004. Twenty-one action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this first tier programmatic final EIS. The preferred alternative consists of near-term and general long-term improvements for the Corridor to meet the travel demand for 2050 and address immediate Corridor needs. To address future uncertainties, trigger points and stakeholder involvement would be used to reassess needs and to determine the most appropriate transportation improvements to meet future demand. The preferred alternative would implement a multimodal solution and include non-infrastructure related components, an advanced guideway system, and highway improvements. A specific advanced guideway system technology would be determined in subsequent study or a Tier 2 process and would be deployed to provide transit service from the Eagle County Regional Airport to C-470, a distance of 118 miles. It would be a fully elevated transit system on two tracks aligned to the north, south, or in the median of I-70. The system would connect to the regional transportation district network in Jefferson County and local and regional transit services at most of the 15 proposed transit stations along the route. The advanced guideway system would require new tunnel bores at both the Eisenhower-Johnson Memorial Tunnels and the Twin Tunnels. The six-lane highway widening improvements included with the preferred alternative maximum program have both 55 miles per hour (mph) and 65 mph design options. The 55 mph option would use the existing I-70 alignment. The 65 mph design would require additional tunnels at Dowd Canyon, Hidden Valley, and Floyd Hill. At Dowd Canyon, two tunnels would be required for eastbound and westbound traffic. The preferred alternative identifies a minimum and maximum range of multi-modal improvements ranging in cost from $16.1 billion to $20.2 billion estimated in year of expenditure dollars and assuming the mid year of construction for the whole alternative is 2025. The 21 action alternatives evaluated in this document range in cost from $1.9 billion to $20.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Improvements would increase capacity, improve accessibility and mobility, and decrease congestion for travel demand to destinations along the I-70 Mountain Corridor as well as for interstate travel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Automobile and truck traffic would continue to degrade air quality, displace key wildlife habitat, and impede and endanger wildlife movements. Contamination from vehicles which then is washed into nearby streams would impact water quality. Under the preferred alternative, the increase in runoff would range from 16 percent to 24 percent. Removal, modification or disturbance of habitat for aquatic species would occur. Historic resources that could be affected include several nationally significant properties, including the Georgetown-Silver Plume National Historic Landmark District and as many as 75 different historic properties. Geologic hazards would need careful examination during Tier 2 processes to locate and design improvements to minimize effects. The preferred alternative would affect between 65 and 90 recreation sites. Transportation energy consumption would increase significantly, particularly under modal options involving highways. 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.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the original and revised draft EISs, see 05-0396D, Volume 29, Number 3 and 10-0498D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110073, Final EIS--527 pages, Appendices--855 pages, Technical Reports--6 volumes, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 30 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cost Assessments KW - Energy Consumption KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Colorado 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 - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127780?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-70+MOUNTAIN+CORRIDOR%2C+GARFIELD%2C+EAGLE%2C+SUMMIT%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-70+MOUNTAIN+CORRIDOR%2C+GARFIELD%2C+EAGLE%2C+SUMMIT%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR, GARFIELD, EAGLE, SUMMIT, CLEAR CREEK AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 29 of 39] T2 - I-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR, GARFIELD, EAGLE, SUMMIT, CLEAR CREEK AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 873127776; 14829-3_0029 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements along the 144-mile-long Interstate 70 (I-70) Mountain Corridor between Glenwood Springs and State Route 470 (C-470), Garfield, Eagle, Summit, Clear Creek and Jefferson counties, Colorado are proposed. The I-70 highway is the only east-west interstate to cross Colorado, directly serves more than 20 communities and a number of major ski resorts, provides access to the White River National Forest and the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests, and is an important freight corridor. Population growth in the Corridor and in the Denver metropolitan area has increased traffic volumes and recreational travelers currently experience substantial delays on weekends and holidays on the eastern side of the corridor while the western side experiences work trip delays during the week. This project began in 2000 and a revised programmatic draft EIS was issued in 2004. Twenty-one action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this first tier programmatic final EIS. The preferred alternative consists of near-term and general long-term improvements for the Corridor to meet the travel demand for 2050 and address immediate Corridor needs. To address future uncertainties, trigger points and stakeholder involvement would be used to reassess needs and to determine the most appropriate transportation improvements to meet future demand. The preferred alternative would implement a multimodal solution and include non-infrastructure related components, an advanced guideway system, and highway improvements. A specific advanced guideway system technology would be determined in subsequent study or a Tier 2 process and would be deployed to provide transit service from the Eagle County Regional Airport to C-470, a distance of 118 miles. It would be a fully elevated transit system on two tracks aligned to the north, south, or in the median of I-70. The system would connect to the regional transportation district network in Jefferson County and local and regional transit services at most of the 15 proposed transit stations along the route. The advanced guideway system would require new tunnel bores at both the Eisenhower-Johnson Memorial Tunnels and the Twin Tunnels. The six-lane highway widening improvements included with the preferred alternative maximum program have both 55 miles per hour (mph) and 65 mph design options. The 55 mph option would use the existing I-70 alignment. The 65 mph design would require additional tunnels at Dowd Canyon, Hidden Valley, and Floyd Hill. At Dowd Canyon, two tunnels would be required for eastbound and westbound traffic. The preferred alternative identifies a minimum and maximum range of multi-modal improvements ranging in cost from $16.1 billion to $20.2 billion estimated in year of expenditure dollars and assuming the mid year of construction for the whole alternative is 2025. The 21 action alternatives evaluated in this document range in cost from $1.9 billion to $20.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Improvements would increase capacity, improve accessibility and mobility, and decrease congestion for travel demand to destinations along the I-70 Mountain Corridor as well as for interstate travel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Automobile and truck traffic would continue to degrade air quality, displace key wildlife habitat, and impede and endanger wildlife movements. Contamination from vehicles which then is washed into nearby streams would impact water quality. Under the preferred alternative, the increase in runoff would range from 16 percent to 24 percent. Removal, modification or disturbance of habitat for aquatic species would occur. Historic resources that could be affected include several nationally significant properties, including the Georgetown-Silver Plume National Historic Landmark District and as many as 75 different historic properties. Geologic hazards would need careful examination during Tier 2 processes to locate and design improvements to minimize effects. The preferred alternative would affect between 65 and 90 recreation sites. Transportation energy consumption would increase significantly, particularly under modal options involving highways. 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.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the original and revised draft EISs, see 05-0396D, Volume 29, Number 3 and 10-0498D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110073, Final EIS--527 pages, Appendices--855 pages, Technical Reports--6 volumes, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 29 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cost Assessments KW - Energy Consumption KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Colorado 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 - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127776?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-70+MOUNTAIN+CORRIDOR%2C+GARFIELD%2C+EAGLE%2C+SUMMIT%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-70+MOUNTAIN+CORRIDOR%2C+GARFIELD%2C+EAGLE%2C+SUMMIT%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR, GARFIELD, EAGLE, SUMMIT, CLEAR CREEK AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 21 of 39] T2 - I-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR, GARFIELD, EAGLE, SUMMIT, CLEAR CREEK AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 873127766; 14829-3_0021 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements along the 144-mile-long Interstate 70 (I-70) Mountain Corridor between Glenwood Springs and State Route 470 (C-470), Garfield, Eagle, Summit, Clear Creek and Jefferson counties, Colorado are proposed. The I-70 highway is the only east-west interstate to cross Colorado, directly serves more than 20 communities and a number of major ski resorts, provides access to the White River National Forest and the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests, and is an important freight corridor. Population growth in the Corridor and in the Denver metropolitan area has increased traffic volumes and recreational travelers currently experience substantial delays on weekends and holidays on the eastern side of the corridor while the western side experiences work trip delays during the week. This project began in 2000 and a revised programmatic draft EIS was issued in 2004. Twenty-one action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this first tier programmatic final EIS. The preferred alternative consists of near-term and general long-term improvements for the Corridor to meet the travel demand for 2050 and address immediate Corridor needs. To address future uncertainties, trigger points and stakeholder involvement would be used to reassess needs and to determine the most appropriate transportation improvements to meet future demand. The preferred alternative would implement a multimodal solution and include non-infrastructure related components, an advanced guideway system, and highway improvements. A specific advanced guideway system technology would be determined in subsequent study or a Tier 2 process and would be deployed to provide transit service from the Eagle County Regional Airport to C-470, a distance of 118 miles. It would be a fully elevated transit system on two tracks aligned to the north, south, or in the median of I-70. The system would connect to the regional transportation district network in Jefferson County and local and regional transit services at most of the 15 proposed transit stations along the route. The advanced guideway system would require new tunnel bores at both the Eisenhower-Johnson Memorial Tunnels and the Twin Tunnels. The six-lane highway widening improvements included with the preferred alternative maximum program have both 55 miles per hour (mph) and 65 mph design options. The 55 mph option would use the existing I-70 alignment. The 65 mph design would require additional tunnels at Dowd Canyon, Hidden Valley, and Floyd Hill. At Dowd Canyon, two tunnels would be required for eastbound and westbound traffic. The preferred alternative identifies a minimum and maximum range of multi-modal improvements ranging in cost from $16.1 billion to $20.2 billion estimated in year of expenditure dollars and assuming the mid year of construction for the whole alternative is 2025. The 21 action alternatives evaluated in this document range in cost from $1.9 billion to $20.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Improvements would increase capacity, improve accessibility and mobility, and decrease congestion for travel demand to destinations along the I-70 Mountain Corridor as well as for interstate travel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Automobile and truck traffic would continue to degrade air quality, displace key wildlife habitat, and impede and endanger wildlife movements. Contamination from vehicles which then is washed into nearby streams would impact water quality. Under the preferred alternative, the increase in runoff would range from 16 percent to 24 percent. Removal, modification or disturbance of habitat for aquatic species would occur. Historic resources that could be affected include several nationally significant properties, including the Georgetown-Silver Plume National Historic Landmark District and as many as 75 different historic properties. Geologic hazards would need careful examination during Tier 2 processes to locate and design improvements to minimize effects. The preferred alternative would affect between 65 and 90 recreation sites. Transportation energy consumption would increase significantly, particularly under modal options involving highways. 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.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the original and revised draft EISs, see 05-0396D, Volume 29, Number 3 and 10-0498D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110073, Final EIS--527 pages, Appendices--855 pages, Technical Reports--6 volumes, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 21 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cost Assessments KW - Energy Consumption KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Colorado 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 - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127766?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-70+MOUNTAIN+CORRIDOR%2C+GARFIELD%2C+EAGLE%2C+SUMMIT%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-70+MOUNTAIN+CORRIDOR%2C+GARFIELD%2C+EAGLE%2C+SUMMIT%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR, GARFIELD, EAGLE, SUMMIT, CLEAR CREEK AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 20 of 39] T2 - I-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR, GARFIELD, EAGLE, SUMMIT, CLEAR CREEK AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 873127762; 14829-3_0020 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements along the 144-mile-long Interstate 70 (I-70) Mountain Corridor between Glenwood Springs and State Route 470 (C-470), Garfield, Eagle, Summit, Clear Creek and Jefferson counties, Colorado are proposed. The I-70 highway is the only east-west interstate to cross Colorado, directly serves more than 20 communities and a number of major ski resorts, provides access to the White River National Forest and the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests, and is an important freight corridor. Population growth in the Corridor and in the Denver metropolitan area has increased traffic volumes and recreational travelers currently experience substantial delays on weekends and holidays on the eastern side of the corridor while the western side experiences work trip delays during the week. This project began in 2000 and a revised programmatic draft EIS was issued in 2004. Twenty-one action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this first tier programmatic final EIS. The preferred alternative consists of near-term and general long-term improvements for the Corridor to meet the travel demand for 2050 and address immediate Corridor needs. To address future uncertainties, trigger points and stakeholder involvement would be used to reassess needs and to determine the most appropriate transportation improvements to meet future demand. The preferred alternative would implement a multimodal solution and include non-infrastructure related components, an advanced guideway system, and highway improvements. A specific advanced guideway system technology would be determined in subsequent study or a Tier 2 process and would be deployed to provide transit service from the Eagle County Regional Airport to C-470, a distance of 118 miles. It would be a fully elevated transit system on two tracks aligned to the north, south, or in the median of I-70. The system would connect to the regional transportation district network in Jefferson County and local and regional transit services at most of the 15 proposed transit stations along the route. The advanced guideway system would require new tunnel bores at both the Eisenhower-Johnson Memorial Tunnels and the Twin Tunnels. The six-lane highway widening improvements included with the preferred alternative maximum program have both 55 miles per hour (mph) and 65 mph design options. The 55 mph option would use the existing I-70 alignment. The 65 mph design would require additional tunnels at Dowd Canyon, Hidden Valley, and Floyd Hill. At Dowd Canyon, two tunnels would be required for eastbound and westbound traffic. The preferred alternative identifies a minimum and maximum range of multi-modal improvements ranging in cost from $16.1 billion to $20.2 billion estimated in year of expenditure dollars and assuming the mid year of construction for the whole alternative is 2025. The 21 action alternatives evaluated in this document range in cost from $1.9 billion to $20.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Improvements would increase capacity, improve accessibility and mobility, and decrease congestion for travel demand to destinations along the I-70 Mountain Corridor as well as for interstate travel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Automobile and truck traffic would continue to degrade air quality, displace key wildlife habitat, and impede and endanger wildlife movements. Contamination from vehicles which then is washed into nearby streams would impact water quality. Under the preferred alternative, the increase in runoff would range from 16 percent to 24 percent. Removal, modification or disturbance of habitat for aquatic species would occur. Historic resources that could be affected include several nationally significant properties, including the Georgetown-Silver Plume National Historic Landmark District and as many as 75 different historic properties. Geologic hazards would need careful examination during Tier 2 processes to locate and design improvements to minimize effects. The preferred alternative would affect between 65 and 90 recreation sites. Transportation energy consumption would increase significantly, particularly under modal options involving highways. 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.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the original and revised draft EISs, see 05-0396D, Volume 29, Number 3 and 10-0498D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110073, Final EIS--527 pages, Appendices--855 pages, Technical Reports--6 volumes, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 20 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cost Assessments KW - Energy Consumption KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Colorado 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 - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127762?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-70+MOUNTAIN+CORRIDOR%2C+GARFIELD%2C+EAGLE%2C+SUMMIT%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-70+MOUNTAIN+CORRIDOR%2C+GARFIELD%2C+EAGLE%2C+SUMMIT%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR, GARFIELD, EAGLE, SUMMIT, CLEAR CREEK AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 19 of 39] T2 - I-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR, GARFIELD, EAGLE, SUMMIT, CLEAR CREEK AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 873127760; 14829-3_0019 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements along the 144-mile-long Interstate 70 (I-70) Mountain Corridor between Glenwood Springs and State Route 470 (C-470), Garfield, Eagle, Summit, Clear Creek and Jefferson counties, Colorado are proposed. The I-70 highway is the only east-west interstate to cross Colorado, directly serves more than 20 communities and a number of major ski resorts, provides access to the White River National Forest and the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests, and is an important freight corridor. Population growth in the Corridor and in the Denver metropolitan area has increased traffic volumes and recreational travelers currently experience substantial delays on weekends and holidays on the eastern side of the corridor while the western side experiences work trip delays during the week. This project began in 2000 and a revised programmatic draft EIS was issued in 2004. Twenty-one action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this first tier programmatic final EIS. The preferred alternative consists of near-term and general long-term improvements for the Corridor to meet the travel demand for 2050 and address immediate Corridor needs. To address future uncertainties, trigger points and stakeholder involvement would be used to reassess needs and to determine the most appropriate transportation improvements to meet future demand. The preferred alternative would implement a multimodal solution and include non-infrastructure related components, an advanced guideway system, and highway improvements. A specific advanced guideway system technology would be determined in subsequent study or a Tier 2 process and would be deployed to provide transit service from the Eagle County Regional Airport to C-470, a distance of 118 miles. It would be a fully elevated transit system on two tracks aligned to the north, south, or in the median of I-70. The system would connect to the regional transportation district network in Jefferson County and local and regional transit services at most of the 15 proposed transit stations along the route. The advanced guideway system would require new tunnel bores at both the Eisenhower-Johnson Memorial Tunnels and the Twin Tunnels. The six-lane highway widening improvements included with the preferred alternative maximum program have both 55 miles per hour (mph) and 65 mph design options. The 55 mph option would use the existing I-70 alignment. The 65 mph design would require additional tunnels at Dowd Canyon, Hidden Valley, and Floyd Hill. At Dowd Canyon, two tunnels would be required for eastbound and westbound traffic. The preferred alternative identifies a minimum and maximum range of multi-modal improvements ranging in cost from $16.1 billion to $20.2 billion estimated in year of expenditure dollars and assuming the mid year of construction for the whole alternative is 2025. The 21 action alternatives evaluated in this document range in cost from $1.9 billion to $20.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Improvements would increase capacity, improve accessibility and mobility, and decrease congestion for travel demand to destinations along the I-70 Mountain Corridor as well as for interstate travel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Automobile and truck traffic would continue to degrade air quality, displace key wildlife habitat, and impede and endanger wildlife movements. Contamination from vehicles which then is washed into nearby streams would impact water quality. Under the preferred alternative, the increase in runoff would range from 16 percent to 24 percent. Removal, modification or disturbance of habitat for aquatic species would occur. Historic resources that could be affected include several nationally significant properties, including the Georgetown-Silver Plume National Historic Landmark District and as many as 75 different historic properties. Geologic hazards would need careful examination during Tier 2 processes to locate and design improvements to minimize effects. The preferred alternative would affect between 65 and 90 recreation sites. Transportation energy consumption would increase significantly, particularly under modal options involving highways. 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.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the original and revised draft EISs, see 05-0396D, Volume 29, Number 3 and 10-0498D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110073, Final EIS--527 pages, Appendices--855 pages, Technical Reports--6 volumes, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 19 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cost Assessments KW - Energy Consumption KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Colorado 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 - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127760?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-70+MOUNTAIN+CORRIDOR%2C+GARFIELD%2C+EAGLE%2C+SUMMIT%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-70+MOUNTAIN+CORRIDOR%2C+GARFIELD%2C+EAGLE%2C+SUMMIT%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR, GARFIELD, EAGLE, SUMMIT, CLEAR CREEK AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 18 of 39] T2 - I-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR, GARFIELD, EAGLE, SUMMIT, CLEAR CREEK AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 873127756; 14829-3_0018 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements along the 144-mile-long Interstate 70 (I-70) Mountain Corridor between Glenwood Springs and State Route 470 (C-470), Garfield, Eagle, Summit, Clear Creek and Jefferson counties, Colorado are proposed. The I-70 highway is the only east-west interstate to cross Colorado, directly serves more than 20 communities and a number of major ski resorts, provides access to the White River National Forest and the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests, and is an important freight corridor. Population growth in the Corridor and in the Denver metropolitan area has increased traffic volumes and recreational travelers currently experience substantial delays on weekends and holidays on the eastern side of the corridor while the western side experiences work trip delays during the week. This project began in 2000 and a revised programmatic draft EIS was issued in 2004. Twenty-one action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this first tier programmatic final EIS. The preferred alternative consists of near-term and general long-term improvements for the Corridor to meet the travel demand for 2050 and address immediate Corridor needs. To address future uncertainties, trigger points and stakeholder involvement would be used to reassess needs and to determine the most appropriate transportation improvements to meet future demand. The preferred alternative would implement a multimodal solution and include non-infrastructure related components, an advanced guideway system, and highway improvements. A specific advanced guideway system technology would be determined in subsequent study or a Tier 2 process and would be deployed to provide transit service from the Eagle County Regional Airport to C-470, a distance of 118 miles. It would be a fully elevated transit system on two tracks aligned to the north, south, or in the median of I-70. The system would connect to the regional transportation district network in Jefferson County and local and regional transit services at most of the 15 proposed transit stations along the route. The advanced guideway system would require new tunnel bores at both the Eisenhower-Johnson Memorial Tunnels and the Twin Tunnels. The six-lane highway widening improvements included with the preferred alternative maximum program have both 55 miles per hour (mph) and 65 mph design options. The 55 mph option would use the existing I-70 alignment. The 65 mph design would require additional tunnels at Dowd Canyon, Hidden Valley, and Floyd Hill. At Dowd Canyon, two tunnels would be required for eastbound and westbound traffic. The preferred alternative identifies a minimum and maximum range of multi-modal improvements ranging in cost from $16.1 billion to $20.2 billion estimated in year of expenditure dollars and assuming the mid year of construction for the whole alternative is 2025. The 21 action alternatives evaluated in this document range in cost from $1.9 billion to $20.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Improvements would increase capacity, improve accessibility and mobility, and decrease congestion for travel demand to destinations along the I-70 Mountain Corridor as well as for interstate travel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Automobile and truck traffic would continue to degrade air quality, displace key wildlife habitat, and impede and endanger wildlife movements. Contamination from vehicles which then is washed into nearby streams would impact water quality. Under the preferred alternative, the increase in runoff would range from 16 percent to 24 percent. Removal, modification or disturbance of habitat for aquatic species would occur. Historic resources that could be affected include several nationally significant properties, including the Georgetown-Silver Plume National Historic Landmark District and as many as 75 different historic properties. Geologic hazards would need careful examination during Tier 2 processes to locate and design improvements to minimize effects. The preferred alternative would affect between 65 and 90 recreation sites. Transportation energy consumption would increase significantly, particularly under modal options involving highways. 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.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the original and revised draft EISs, see 05-0396D, Volume 29, Number 3 and 10-0498D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110073, Final EIS--527 pages, Appendices--855 pages, Technical Reports--6 volumes, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 18 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cost Assessments KW - Energy Consumption KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Colorado 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 - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127756?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-70+MOUNTAIN+CORRIDOR%2C+GARFIELD%2C+EAGLE%2C+SUMMIT%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-70+MOUNTAIN+CORRIDOR%2C+GARFIELD%2C+EAGLE%2C+SUMMIT%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR, GARFIELD, EAGLE, SUMMIT, CLEAR CREEK AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 16 of 39] T2 - I-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR, GARFIELD, EAGLE, SUMMIT, CLEAR CREEK AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 873127747; 14829-3_0016 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements along the 144-mile-long Interstate 70 (I-70) Mountain Corridor between Glenwood Springs and State Route 470 (C-470), Garfield, Eagle, Summit, Clear Creek and Jefferson counties, Colorado are proposed. The I-70 highway is the only east-west interstate to cross Colorado, directly serves more than 20 communities and a number of major ski resorts, provides access to the White River National Forest and the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests, and is an important freight corridor. Population growth in the Corridor and in the Denver metropolitan area has increased traffic volumes and recreational travelers currently experience substantial delays on weekends and holidays on the eastern side of the corridor while the western side experiences work trip delays during the week. This project began in 2000 and a revised programmatic draft EIS was issued in 2004. Twenty-one action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this first tier programmatic final EIS. The preferred alternative consists of near-term and general long-term improvements for the Corridor to meet the travel demand for 2050 and address immediate Corridor needs. To address future uncertainties, trigger points and stakeholder involvement would be used to reassess needs and to determine the most appropriate transportation improvements to meet future demand. The preferred alternative would implement a multimodal solution and include non-infrastructure related components, an advanced guideway system, and highway improvements. A specific advanced guideway system technology would be determined in subsequent study or a Tier 2 process and would be deployed to provide transit service from the Eagle County Regional Airport to C-470, a distance of 118 miles. It would be a fully elevated transit system on two tracks aligned to the north, south, or in the median of I-70. The system would connect to the regional transportation district network in Jefferson County and local and regional transit services at most of the 15 proposed transit stations along the route. The advanced guideway system would require new tunnel bores at both the Eisenhower-Johnson Memorial Tunnels and the Twin Tunnels. The six-lane highway widening improvements included with the preferred alternative maximum program have both 55 miles per hour (mph) and 65 mph design options. The 55 mph option would use the existing I-70 alignment. The 65 mph design would require additional tunnels at Dowd Canyon, Hidden Valley, and Floyd Hill. At Dowd Canyon, two tunnels would be required for eastbound and westbound traffic. The preferred alternative identifies a minimum and maximum range of multi-modal improvements ranging in cost from $16.1 billion to $20.2 billion estimated in year of expenditure dollars and assuming the mid year of construction for the whole alternative is 2025. The 21 action alternatives evaluated in this document range in cost from $1.9 billion to $20.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Improvements would increase capacity, improve accessibility and mobility, and decrease congestion for travel demand to destinations along the I-70 Mountain Corridor as well as for interstate travel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Automobile and truck traffic would continue to degrade air quality, displace key wildlife habitat, and impede and endanger wildlife movements. Contamination from vehicles which then is washed into nearby streams would impact water quality. Under the preferred alternative, the increase in runoff would range from 16 percent to 24 percent. Removal, modification or disturbance of habitat for aquatic species would occur. Historic resources that could be affected include several nationally significant properties, including the Georgetown-Silver Plume National Historic Landmark District and as many as 75 different historic properties. Geologic hazards would need careful examination during Tier 2 processes to locate and design improvements to minimize effects. The preferred alternative would affect between 65 and 90 recreation sites. Transportation energy consumption would increase significantly, particularly under modal options involving highways. 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.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the original and revised draft EISs, see 05-0396D, Volume 29, Number 3 and 10-0498D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110073, Final EIS--527 pages, Appendices--855 pages, Technical Reports--6 volumes, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 16 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cost Assessments KW - Energy Consumption KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Colorado 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 - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127747?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-70+MOUNTAIN+CORRIDOR%2C+GARFIELD%2C+EAGLE%2C+SUMMIT%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-70+MOUNTAIN+CORRIDOR%2C+GARFIELD%2C+EAGLE%2C+SUMMIT%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 62 of 68] T2 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 873127377; 14827-1_0062 AB - PURPOSE: The mining of phosphate ore at the Blackfoot Bridge Mine, located 10 miles northeast of Soda Springs in Caribou County, Idaho is proposed. P4 Production, LLC (P4), a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto Company, Inc., submitted an initial mine and reclamation plan in November 2005 and a revised plan in October 2008. The revised plan proposes a new open pit phosphate mining operation on federal mineral leases that would include external overburden piles, a haul road, and a water management plan. Under the proposed action, phosphate ore would be mined and hauled eight miles to P4's Soda Springs elemental phosphorous plant for processing. No processing other than typical crushing and screening operations would occur at the mine site and all chemical processing activities would occur at the Soda Springs plant. The Blackfoot Bridge Mine ore reserve would be developed using an open pit mining method on a series of bench cuts, using a combination of in-pit retreating ramps and backfill ramps. The primary equipment for ore and overburden mining would be a combination of trucks, track-mounted excavators, bulldozers, and front-end loaders. A track-hoe excavator would also be used to maximize recovery of ore in the bottom of the pit. The project would be mined in a phased approach with mining and reclamation activities continuing for 17 years. Ore would be recovered from three mine pits beginning in Mid Pit, followed by the North Pit and South Pit. All overburden would either be backfilled into mined-out portions of the mine pits or placed in the external east overburden pile or northwest overburden pile. Facilities would include: 1) an ore stockpile and truck loading area; 2) an ore truck turnaround loop and equipment yard; 3) two water management ponds and other water control structures; 4) topsoil stockpiles; 5) sediment control dams; 6) roads; and 7) sediment control structures. A surface water diversion ditch would be constructed from the unnamed tributary to Fish Pond to the water management ponds. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, a layer of impermeable material would be constructed between the segregated Meade Peak overburden and the applied growth medium to eliminate potential effects of water infiltrating into the backfilled pits and external overburden piles. Alternative 1A, which is the preferred alternative, would use a geosynthetic clay laminate layer (GCLL) cover system over core materials in the east overburden pile and overburden pits. Alternative 1B would use a GCLL over the entire east overburden pile and overburden pits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would ensure economically viable development of phosphate resources and allow the lessee to exercise its right to develop those resources. Reduced infiltration of precipitation into the backfilled overburden and east overburden pile would reduce the concentration of selenium and constituents of particular concern in groundwater that discharges to the Blackfoot River to levels that would meet local water quality standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of 91 million bank cubic yards of overburden would disturb soils, increase erosion and sediment transport rates, and result in the loss of 99 acres of wildlife habitat and of 9.4 acres of wetlands. Mining would result in release of selenium and trace metals and groundwater quality would be potentially impacted by seepage from the proposed overburden piles and backfilled pits. Construction of facilities would have effects on topography and stability of the landscape. Surface disturbance would total 739 acres and 65 acres not reclaimed would represent long-term modification. Annual fugitive dust emissions from mining operations would be 138 tons per year. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, potential reduction in groundwater levels would be greater than that predicted under the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0265D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110071, 921 pages and maps, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 62 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-ID-320-2006-EIS-1553 KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Diversion Structures KW - Emissions KW - Erosion KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Phosphates KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Soils KW - Water Quality KW - Idaho KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127377?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 38 of 68] T2 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 873127368; 14827-1_0038 AB - PURPOSE: The mining of phosphate ore at the Blackfoot Bridge Mine, located 10 miles northeast of Soda Springs in Caribou County, Idaho is proposed. P4 Production, LLC (P4), a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto Company, Inc., submitted an initial mine and reclamation plan in November 2005 and a revised plan in October 2008. The revised plan proposes a new open pit phosphate mining operation on federal mineral leases that would include external overburden piles, a haul road, and a water management plan. Under the proposed action, phosphate ore would be mined and hauled eight miles to P4's Soda Springs elemental phosphorous plant for processing. No processing other than typical crushing and screening operations would occur at the mine site and all chemical processing activities would occur at the Soda Springs plant. The Blackfoot Bridge Mine ore reserve would be developed using an open pit mining method on a series of bench cuts, using a combination of in-pit retreating ramps and backfill ramps. The primary equipment for ore and overburden mining would be a combination of trucks, track-mounted excavators, bulldozers, and front-end loaders. A track-hoe excavator would also be used to maximize recovery of ore in the bottom of the pit. The project would be mined in a phased approach with mining and reclamation activities continuing for 17 years. Ore would be recovered from three mine pits beginning in Mid Pit, followed by the North Pit and South Pit. All overburden would either be backfilled into mined-out portions of the mine pits or placed in the external east overburden pile or northwest overburden pile. Facilities would include: 1) an ore stockpile and truck loading area; 2) an ore truck turnaround loop and equipment yard; 3) two water management ponds and other water control structures; 4) topsoil stockpiles; 5) sediment control dams; 6) roads; and 7) sediment control structures. A surface water diversion ditch would be constructed from the unnamed tributary to Fish Pond to the water management ponds. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, a layer of impermeable material would be constructed between the segregated Meade Peak overburden and the applied growth medium to eliminate potential effects of water infiltrating into the backfilled pits and external overburden piles. Alternative 1A, which is the preferred alternative, would use a geosynthetic clay laminate layer (GCLL) cover system over core materials in the east overburden pile and overburden pits. Alternative 1B would use a GCLL over the entire east overburden pile and overburden pits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would ensure economically viable development of phosphate resources and allow the lessee to exercise its right to develop those resources. Reduced infiltration of precipitation into the backfilled overburden and east overburden pile would reduce the concentration of selenium and constituents of particular concern in groundwater that discharges to the Blackfoot River to levels that would meet local water quality standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of 91 million bank cubic yards of overburden would disturb soils, increase erosion and sediment transport rates, and result in the loss of 99 acres of wildlife habitat and of 9.4 acres of wetlands. Mining would result in release of selenium and trace metals and groundwater quality would be potentially impacted by seepage from the proposed overburden piles and backfilled pits. Construction of facilities would have effects on topography and stability of the landscape. Surface disturbance would total 739 acres and 65 acres not reclaimed would represent long-term modification. Annual fugitive dust emissions from mining operations would be 138 tons per year. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, potential reduction in groundwater levels would be greater than that predicted under the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0265D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110071, 921 pages and maps, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 38 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-ID-320-2006-EIS-1553 KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Diversion Structures KW - Emissions KW - Erosion KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Phosphates KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Soils KW - Water Quality KW - Idaho KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127368?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 37 of 68] T2 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 873127362; 14827-1_0037 AB - PURPOSE: The mining of phosphate ore at the Blackfoot Bridge Mine, located 10 miles northeast of Soda Springs in Caribou County, Idaho is proposed. P4 Production, LLC (P4), a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto Company, Inc., submitted an initial mine and reclamation plan in November 2005 and a revised plan in October 2008. The revised plan proposes a new open pit phosphate mining operation on federal mineral leases that would include external overburden piles, a haul road, and a water management plan. Under the proposed action, phosphate ore would be mined and hauled eight miles to P4's Soda Springs elemental phosphorous plant for processing. No processing other than typical crushing and screening operations would occur at the mine site and all chemical processing activities would occur at the Soda Springs plant. The Blackfoot Bridge Mine ore reserve would be developed using an open pit mining method on a series of bench cuts, using a combination of in-pit retreating ramps and backfill ramps. The primary equipment for ore and overburden mining would be a combination of trucks, track-mounted excavators, bulldozers, and front-end loaders. A track-hoe excavator would also be used to maximize recovery of ore in the bottom of the pit. The project would be mined in a phased approach with mining and reclamation activities continuing for 17 years. Ore would be recovered from three mine pits beginning in Mid Pit, followed by the North Pit and South Pit. All overburden would either be backfilled into mined-out portions of the mine pits or placed in the external east overburden pile or northwest overburden pile. Facilities would include: 1) an ore stockpile and truck loading area; 2) an ore truck turnaround loop and equipment yard; 3) two water management ponds and other water control structures; 4) topsoil stockpiles; 5) sediment control dams; 6) roads; and 7) sediment control structures. A surface water diversion ditch would be constructed from the unnamed tributary to Fish Pond to the water management ponds. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, a layer of impermeable material would be constructed between the segregated Meade Peak overburden and the applied growth medium to eliminate potential effects of water infiltrating into the backfilled pits and external overburden piles. Alternative 1A, which is the preferred alternative, would use a geosynthetic clay laminate layer (GCLL) cover system over core materials in the east overburden pile and overburden pits. Alternative 1B would use a GCLL over the entire east overburden pile and overburden pits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would ensure economically viable development of phosphate resources and allow the lessee to exercise its right to develop those resources. Reduced infiltration of precipitation into the backfilled overburden and east overburden pile would reduce the concentration of selenium and constituents of particular concern in groundwater that discharges to the Blackfoot River to levels that would meet local water quality standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of 91 million bank cubic yards of overburden would disturb soils, increase erosion and sediment transport rates, and result in the loss of 99 acres of wildlife habitat and of 9.4 acres of wetlands. Mining would result in release of selenium and trace metals and groundwater quality would be potentially impacted by seepage from the proposed overburden piles and backfilled pits. Construction of facilities would have effects on topography and stability of the landscape. Surface disturbance would total 739 acres and 65 acres not reclaimed would represent long-term modification. Annual fugitive dust emissions from mining operations would be 138 tons per year. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, potential reduction in groundwater levels would be greater than that predicted under the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0265D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110071, 921 pages and maps, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 37 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-ID-320-2006-EIS-1553 KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Diversion Structures KW - Emissions KW - Erosion KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Phosphates KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Soils KW - Water Quality KW - Idaho KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127362?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 36 of 68] T2 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 873127356; 14827-1_0036 AB - PURPOSE: The mining of phosphate ore at the Blackfoot Bridge Mine, located 10 miles northeast of Soda Springs in Caribou County, Idaho is proposed. P4 Production, LLC (P4), a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto Company, Inc., submitted an initial mine and reclamation plan in November 2005 and a revised plan in October 2008. The revised plan proposes a new open pit phosphate mining operation on federal mineral leases that would include external overburden piles, a haul road, and a water management plan. Under the proposed action, phosphate ore would be mined and hauled eight miles to P4's Soda Springs elemental phosphorous plant for processing. No processing other than typical crushing and screening operations would occur at the mine site and all chemical processing activities would occur at the Soda Springs plant. The Blackfoot Bridge Mine ore reserve would be developed using an open pit mining method on a series of bench cuts, using a combination of in-pit retreating ramps and backfill ramps. The primary equipment for ore and overburden mining would be a combination of trucks, track-mounted excavators, bulldozers, and front-end loaders. A track-hoe excavator would also be used to maximize recovery of ore in the bottom of the pit. The project would be mined in a phased approach with mining and reclamation activities continuing for 17 years. Ore would be recovered from three mine pits beginning in Mid Pit, followed by the North Pit and South Pit. All overburden would either be backfilled into mined-out portions of the mine pits or placed in the external east overburden pile or northwest overburden pile. Facilities would include: 1) an ore stockpile and truck loading area; 2) an ore truck turnaround loop and equipment yard; 3) two water management ponds and other water control structures; 4) topsoil stockpiles; 5) sediment control dams; 6) roads; and 7) sediment control structures. A surface water diversion ditch would be constructed from the unnamed tributary to Fish Pond to the water management ponds. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, a layer of impermeable material would be constructed between the segregated Meade Peak overburden and the applied growth medium to eliminate potential effects of water infiltrating into the backfilled pits and external overburden piles. Alternative 1A, which is the preferred alternative, would use a geosynthetic clay laminate layer (GCLL) cover system over core materials in the east overburden pile and overburden pits. Alternative 1B would use a GCLL over the entire east overburden pile and overburden pits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would ensure economically viable development of phosphate resources and allow the lessee to exercise its right to develop those resources. Reduced infiltration of precipitation into the backfilled overburden and east overburden pile would reduce the concentration of selenium and constituents of particular concern in groundwater that discharges to the Blackfoot River to levels that would meet local water quality standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of 91 million bank cubic yards of overburden would disturb soils, increase erosion and sediment transport rates, and result in the loss of 99 acres of wildlife habitat and of 9.4 acres of wetlands. Mining would result in release of selenium and trace metals and groundwater quality would be potentially impacted by seepage from the proposed overburden piles and backfilled pits. Construction of facilities would have effects on topography and stability of the landscape. Surface disturbance would total 739 acres and 65 acres not reclaimed would represent long-term modification. Annual fugitive dust emissions from mining operations would be 138 tons per year. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, potential reduction in groundwater levels would be greater than that predicted under the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0265D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110071, 921 pages and maps, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 36 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-ID-320-2006-EIS-1553 KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Diversion Structures KW - Emissions KW - Erosion KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Phosphates KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Soils KW - Water Quality KW - Idaho KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127356?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 15 of 68] T2 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 873127352; 14827-1_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The mining of phosphate ore at the Blackfoot Bridge Mine, located 10 miles northeast of Soda Springs in Caribou County, Idaho is proposed. P4 Production, LLC (P4), a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto Company, Inc., submitted an initial mine and reclamation plan in November 2005 and a revised plan in October 2008. The revised plan proposes a new open pit phosphate mining operation on federal mineral leases that would include external overburden piles, a haul road, and a water management plan. Under the proposed action, phosphate ore would be mined and hauled eight miles to P4's Soda Springs elemental phosphorous plant for processing. No processing other than typical crushing and screening operations would occur at the mine site and all chemical processing activities would occur at the Soda Springs plant. The Blackfoot Bridge Mine ore reserve would be developed using an open pit mining method on a series of bench cuts, using a combination of in-pit retreating ramps and backfill ramps. The primary equipment for ore and overburden mining would be a combination of trucks, track-mounted excavators, bulldozers, and front-end loaders. A track-hoe excavator would also be used to maximize recovery of ore in the bottom of the pit. The project would be mined in a phased approach with mining and reclamation activities continuing for 17 years. Ore would be recovered from three mine pits beginning in Mid Pit, followed by the North Pit and South Pit. All overburden would either be backfilled into mined-out portions of the mine pits or placed in the external east overburden pile or northwest overburden pile. Facilities would include: 1) an ore stockpile and truck loading area; 2) an ore truck turnaround loop and equipment yard; 3) two water management ponds and other water control structures; 4) topsoil stockpiles; 5) sediment control dams; 6) roads; and 7) sediment control structures. A surface water diversion ditch would be constructed from the unnamed tributary to Fish Pond to the water management ponds. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, a layer of impermeable material would be constructed between the segregated Meade Peak overburden and the applied growth medium to eliminate potential effects of water infiltrating into the backfilled pits and external overburden piles. Alternative 1A, which is the preferred alternative, would use a geosynthetic clay laminate layer (GCLL) cover system over core materials in the east overburden pile and overburden pits. Alternative 1B would use a GCLL over the entire east overburden pile and overburden pits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would ensure economically viable development of phosphate resources and allow the lessee to exercise its right to develop those resources. Reduced infiltration of precipitation into the backfilled overburden and east overburden pile would reduce the concentration of selenium and constituents of particular concern in groundwater that discharges to the Blackfoot River to levels that would meet local water quality standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of 91 million bank cubic yards of overburden would disturb soils, increase erosion and sediment transport rates, and result in the loss of 99 acres of wildlife habitat and of 9.4 acres of wetlands. Mining would result in release of selenium and trace metals and groundwater quality would be potentially impacted by seepage from the proposed overburden piles and backfilled pits. Construction of facilities would have effects on topography and stability of the landscape. Surface disturbance would total 739 acres and 65 acres not reclaimed would represent long-term modification. Annual fugitive dust emissions from mining operations would be 138 tons per year. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, potential reduction in groundwater levels would be greater than that predicted under the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0265D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110071, 921 pages and maps, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-ID-320-2006-EIS-1553 KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Diversion Structures KW - Emissions KW - Erosion KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Phosphates KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Soils KW - Water Quality KW - Idaho KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127352?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-11-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=C.8&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Wall+Street+Journal&rft.issn=00999660&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 14 of 68] T2 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 873127343; 14827-1_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The mining of phosphate ore at the Blackfoot Bridge Mine, located 10 miles northeast of Soda Springs in Caribou County, Idaho is proposed. P4 Production, LLC (P4), a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto Company, Inc., submitted an initial mine and reclamation plan in November 2005 and a revised plan in October 2008. The revised plan proposes a new open pit phosphate mining operation on federal mineral leases that would include external overburden piles, a haul road, and a water management plan. Under the proposed action, phosphate ore would be mined and hauled eight miles to P4's Soda Springs elemental phosphorous plant for processing. No processing other than typical crushing and screening operations would occur at the mine site and all chemical processing activities would occur at the Soda Springs plant. The Blackfoot Bridge Mine ore reserve would be developed using an open pit mining method on a series of bench cuts, using a combination of in-pit retreating ramps and backfill ramps. The primary equipment for ore and overburden mining would be a combination of trucks, track-mounted excavators, bulldozers, and front-end loaders. A track-hoe excavator would also be used to maximize recovery of ore in the bottom of the pit. The project would be mined in a phased approach with mining and reclamation activities continuing for 17 years. Ore would be recovered from three mine pits beginning in Mid Pit, followed by the North Pit and South Pit. All overburden would either be backfilled into mined-out portions of the mine pits or placed in the external east overburden pile or northwest overburden pile. Facilities would include: 1) an ore stockpile and truck loading area; 2) an ore truck turnaround loop and equipment yard; 3) two water management ponds and other water control structures; 4) topsoil stockpiles; 5) sediment control dams; 6) roads; and 7) sediment control structures. A surface water diversion ditch would be constructed from the unnamed tributary to Fish Pond to the water management ponds. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, a layer of impermeable material would be constructed between the segregated Meade Peak overburden and the applied growth medium to eliminate potential effects of water infiltrating into the backfilled pits and external overburden piles. Alternative 1A, which is the preferred alternative, would use a geosynthetic clay laminate layer (GCLL) cover system over core materials in the east overburden pile and overburden pits. Alternative 1B would use a GCLL over the entire east overburden pile and overburden pits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would ensure economically viable development of phosphate resources and allow the lessee to exercise its right to develop those resources. Reduced infiltration of precipitation into the backfilled overburden and east overburden pile would reduce the concentration of selenium and constituents of particular concern in groundwater that discharges to the Blackfoot River to levels that would meet local water quality standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of 91 million bank cubic yards of overburden would disturb soils, increase erosion and sediment transport rates, and result in the loss of 99 acres of wildlife habitat and of 9.4 acres of wetlands. Mining would result in release of selenium and trace metals and groundwater quality would be potentially impacted by seepage from the proposed overburden piles and backfilled pits. Construction of facilities would have effects on topography and stability of the landscape. Surface disturbance would total 739 acres and 65 acres not reclaimed would represent long-term modification. Annual fugitive dust emissions from mining operations would be 138 tons per year. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, potential reduction in groundwater levels would be greater than that predicted under the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0265D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110071, 921 pages and maps, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-ID-320-2006-EIS-1553 KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Diversion Structures KW - Emissions KW - Erosion KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Phosphates KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Soils KW - Water Quality KW - Idaho KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127343?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 13 of 68] T2 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 873127338; 14827-1_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The mining of phosphate ore at the Blackfoot Bridge Mine, located 10 miles northeast of Soda Springs in Caribou County, Idaho is proposed. P4 Production, LLC (P4), a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto Company, Inc., submitted an initial mine and reclamation plan in November 2005 and a revised plan in October 2008. The revised plan proposes a new open pit phosphate mining operation on federal mineral leases that would include external overburden piles, a haul road, and a water management plan. Under the proposed action, phosphate ore would be mined and hauled eight miles to P4's Soda Springs elemental phosphorous plant for processing. No processing other than typical crushing and screening operations would occur at the mine site and all chemical processing activities would occur at the Soda Springs plant. The Blackfoot Bridge Mine ore reserve would be developed using an open pit mining method on a series of bench cuts, using a combination of in-pit retreating ramps and backfill ramps. The primary equipment for ore and overburden mining would be a combination of trucks, track-mounted excavators, bulldozers, and front-end loaders. A track-hoe excavator would also be used to maximize recovery of ore in the bottom of the pit. The project would be mined in a phased approach with mining and reclamation activities continuing for 17 years. Ore would be recovered from three mine pits beginning in Mid Pit, followed by the North Pit and South Pit. All overburden would either be backfilled into mined-out portions of the mine pits or placed in the external east overburden pile or northwest overburden pile. Facilities would include: 1) an ore stockpile and truck loading area; 2) an ore truck turnaround loop and equipment yard; 3) two water management ponds and other water control structures; 4) topsoil stockpiles; 5) sediment control dams; 6) roads; and 7) sediment control structures. A surface water diversion ditch would be constructed from the unnamed tributary to Fish Pond to the water management ponds. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, a layer of impermeable material would be constructed between the segregated Meade Peak overburden and the applied growth medium to eliminate potential effects of water infiltrating into the backfilled pits and external overburden piles. Alternative 1A, which is the preferred alternative, would use a geosynthetic clay laminate layer (GCLL) cover system over core materials in the east overburden pile and overburden pits. Alternative 1B would use a GCLL over the entire east overburden pile and overburden pits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would ensure economically viable development of phosphate resources and allow the lessee to exercise its right to develop those resources. Reduced infiltration of precipitation into the backfilled overburden and east overburden pile would reduce the concentration of selenium and constituents of particular concern in groundwater that discharges to the Blackfoot River to levels that would meet local water quality standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of 91 million bank cubic yards of overburden would disturb soils, increase erosion and sediment transport rates, and result in the loss of 99 acres of wildlife habitat and of 9.4 acres of wetlands. Mining would result in release of selenium and trace metals and groundwater quality would be potentially impacted by seepage from the proposed overburden piles and backfilled pits. Construction of facilities would have effects on topography and stability of the landscape. Surface disturbance would total 739 acres and 65 acres not reclaimed would represent long-term modification. Annual fugitive dust emissions from mining operations would be 138 tons per year. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, potential reduction in groundwater levels would be greater than that predicted under the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0265D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110071, 921 pages and maps, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-ID-320-2006-EIS-1553 KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Diversion Structures KW - Emissions KW - Erosion KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Phosphates KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Soils KW - Water Quality KW - Idaho KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127338?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR, GARFIELD, EAGLE, SUMMIT, CLEAR CREEK AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 27 of 39] T2 - I-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR, GARFIELD, EAGLE, SUMMIT, CLEAR CREEK AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 873127294; 14829-3_0027 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements along the 144-mile-long Interstate 70 (I-70) Mountain Corridor between Glenwood Springs and State Route 470 (C-470), Garfield, Eagle, Summit, Clear Creek and Jefferson counties, Colorado are proposed. The I-70 highway is the only east-west interstate to cross Colorado, directly serves more than 20 communities and a number of major ski resorts, provides access to the White River National Forest and the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests, and is an important freight corridor. Population growth in the Corridor and in the Denver metropolitan area has increased traffic volumes and recreational travelers currently experience substantial delays on weekends and holidays on the eastern side of the corridor while the western side experiences work trip delays during the week. This project began in 2000 and a revised programmatic draft EIS was issued in 2004. Twenty-one action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this first tier programmatic final EIS. The preferred alternative consists of near-term and general long-term improvements for the Corridor to meet the travel demand for 2050 and address immediate Corridor needs. To address future uncertainties, trigger points and stakeholder involvement would be used to reassess needs and to determine the most appropriate transportation improvements to meet future demand. The preferred alternative would implement a multimodal solution and include non-infrastructure related components, an advanced guideway system, and highway improvements. A specific advanced guideway system technology would be determined in subsequent study or a Tier 2 process and would be deployed to provide transit service from the Eagle County Regional Airport to C-470, a distance of 118 miles. It would be a fully elevated transit system on two tracks aligned to the north, south, or in the median of I-70. The system would connect to the regional transportation district network in Jefferson County and local and regional transit services at most of the 15 proposed transit stations along the route. The advanced guideway system would require new tunnel bores at both the Eisenhower-Johnson Memorial Tunnels and the Twin Tunnels. The six-lane highway widening improvements included with the preferred alternative maximum program have both 55 miles per hour (mph) and 65 mph design options. The 55 mph option would use the existing I-70 alignment. The 65 mph design would require additional tunnels at Dowd Canyon, Hidden Valley, and Floyd Hill. At Dowd Canyon, two tunnels would be required for eastbound and westbound traffic. The preferred alternative identifies a minimum and maximum range of multi-modal improvements ranging in cost from $16.1 billion to $20.2 billion estimated in year of expenditure dollars and assuming the mid year of construction for the whole alternative is 2025. The 21 action alternatives evaluated in this document range in cost from $1.9 billion to $20.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Improvements would increase capacity, improve accessibility and mobility, and decrease congestion for travel demand to destinations along the I-70 Mountain Corridor as well as for interstate travel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Automobile and truck traffic would continue to degrade air quality, displace key wildlife habitat, and impede and endanger wildlife movements. Contamination from vehicles which then is washed into nearby streams would impact water quality. Under the preferred alternative, the increase in runoff would range from 16 percent to 24 percent. Removal, modification or disturbance of habitat for aquatic species would occur. Historic resources that could be affected include several nationally significant properties, including the Georgetown-Silver Plume National Historic Landmark District and as many as 75 different historic properties. Geologic hazards would need careful examination during Tier 2 processes to locate and design improvements to minimize effects. The preferred alternative would affect between 65 and 90 recreation sites. Transportation energy consumption would increase significantly, particularly under modal options involving highways. 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.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the original and revised draft EISs, see 05-0396D, Volume 29, Number 3 and 10-0498D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110073, Final EIS--527 pages, Appendices--855 pages, Technical Reports--6 volumes, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 27 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cost Assessments KW - Energy Consumption KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Colorado 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 - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127294?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-70+MOUNTAIN+CORRIDOR%2C+GARFIELD%2C+EAGLE%2C+SUMMIT%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-70+MOUNTAIN+CORRIDOR%2C+GARFIELD%2C+EAGLE%2C+SUMMIT%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR, GARFIELD, EAGLE, SUMMIT, CLEAR CREEK AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 26 of 39] T2 - I-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR, GARFIELD, EAGLE, SUMMIT, CLEAR CREEK AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 873127285; 14829-3_0026 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements along the 144-mile-long Interstate 70 (I-70) Mountain Corridor between Glenwood Springs and State Route 470 (C-470), Garfield, Eagle, Summit, Clear Creek and Jefferson counties, Colorado are proposed. The I-70 highway is the only east-west interstate to cross Colorado, directly serves more than 20 communities and a number of major ski resorts, provides access to the White River National Forest and the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests, and is an important freight corridor. Population growth in the Corridor and in the Denver metropolitan area has increased traffic volumes and recreational travelers currently experience substantial delays on weekends and holidays on the eastern side of the corridor while the western side experiences work trip delays during the week. This project began in 2000 and a revised programmatic draft EIS was issued in 2004. Twenty-one action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this first tier programmatic final EIS. The preferred alternative consists of near-term and general long-term improvements for the Corridor to meet the travel demand for 2050 and address immediate Corridor needs. To address future uncertainties, trigger points and stakeholder involvement would be used to reassess needs and to determine the most appropriate transportation improvements to meet future demand. The preferred alternative would implement a multimodal solution and include non-infrastructure related components, an advanced guideway system, and highway improvements. A specific advanced guideway system technology would be determined in subsequent study or a Tier 2 process and would be deployed to provide transit service from the Eagle County Regional Airport to C-470, a distance of 118 miles. It would be a fully elevated transit system on two tracks aligned to the north, south, or in the median of I-70. The system would connect to the regional transportation district network in Jefferson County and local and regional transit services at most of the 15 proposed transit stations along the route. The advanced guideway system would require new tunnel bores at both the Eisenhower-Johnson Memorial Tunnels and the Twin Tunnels. The six-lane highway widening improvements included with the preferred alternative maximum program have both 55 miles per hour (mph) and 65 mph design options. The 55 mph option would use the existing I-70 alignment. The 65 mph design would require additional tunnels at Dowd Canyon, Hidden Valley, and Floyd Hill. At Dowd Canyon, two tunnels would be required for eastbound and westbound traffic. The preferred alternative identifies a minimum and maximum range of multi-modal improvements ranging in cost from $16.1 billion to $20.2 billion estimated in year of expenditure dollars and assuming the mid year of construction for the whole alternative is 2025. The 21 action alternatives evaluated in this document range in cost from $1.9 billion to $20.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Improvements would increase capacity, improve accessibility and mobility, and decrease congestion for travel demand to destinations along the I-70 Mountain Corridor as well as for interstate travel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Automobile and truck traffic would continue to degrade air quality, displace key wildlife habitat, and impede and endanger wildlife movements. Contamination from vehicles which then is washed into nearby streams would impact water quality. Under the preferred alternative, the increase in runoff would range from 16 percent to 24 percent. Removal, modification or disturbance of habitat for aquatic species would occur. Historic resources that could be affected include several nationally significant properties, including the Georgetown-Silver Plume National Historic Landmark District and as many as 75 different historic properties. Geologic hazards would need careful examination during Tier 2 processes to locate and design improvements to minimize effects. The preferred alternative would affect between 65 and 90 recreation sites. Transportation energy consumption would increase significantly, particularly under modal options involving highways. 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.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the original and revised draft EISs, see 05-0396D, Volume 29, Number 3 and 10-0498D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110073, Final EIS--527 pages, Appendices--855 pages, Technical Reports--6 volumes, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 26 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cost Assessments KW - Energy Consumption KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Colorado 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 - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127285?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=B.10&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Wall+Street+Journal&rft.issn=00999660&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 - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR, GARFIELD, EAGLE, SUMMIT, CLEAR CREEK AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 25 of 39] T2 - I-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR, GARFIELD, EAGLE, SUMMIT, CLEAR CREEK AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 873127283; 14829-3_0025 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements along the 144-mile-long Interstate 70 (I-70) Mountain Corridor between Glenwood Springs and State Route 470 (C-470), Garfield, Eagle, Summit, Clear Creek and Jefferson counties, Colorado are proposed. The I-70 highway is the only east-west interstate to cross Colorado, directly serves more than 20 communities and a number of major ski resorts, provides access to the White River National Forest and the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests, and is an important freight corridor. Population growth in the Corridor and in the Denver metropolitan area has increased traffic volumes and recreational travelers currently experience substantial delays on weekends and holidays on the eastern side of the corridor while the western side experiences work trip delays during the week. This project began in 2000 and a revised programmatic draft EIS was issued in 2004. Twenty-one action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this first tier programmatic final EIS. The preferred alternative consists of near-term and general long-term improvements for the Corridor to meet the travel demand for 2050 and address immediate Corridor needs. To address future uncertainties, trigger points and stakeholder involvement would be used to reassess needs and to determine the most appropriate transportation improvements to meet future demand. The preferred alternative would implement a multimodal solution and include non-infrastructure related components, an advanced guideway system, and highway improvements. A specific advanced guideway system technology would be determined in subsequent study or a Tier 2 process and would be deployed to provide transit service from the Eagle County Regional Airport to C-470, a distance of 118 miles. It would be a fully elevated transit system on two tracks aligned to the north, south, or in the median of I-70. The system would connect to the regional transportation district network in Jefferson County and local and regional transit services at most of the 15 proposed transit stations along the route. The advanced guideway system would require new tunnel bores at both the Eisenhower-Johnson Memorial Tunnels and the Twin Tunnels. The six-lane highway widening improvements included with the preferred alternative maximum program have both 55 miles per hour (mph) and 65 mph design options. The 55 mph option would use the existing I-70 alignment. The 65 mph design would require additional tunnels at Dowd Canyon, Hidden Valley, and Floyd Hill. At Dowd Canyon, two tunnels would be required for eastbound and westbound traffic. The preferred alternative identifies a minimum and maximum range of multi-modal improvements ranging in cost from $16.1 billion to $20.2 billion estimated in year of expenditure dollars and assuming the mid year of construction for the whole alternative is 2025. The 21 action alternatives evaluated in this document range in cost from $1.9 billion to $20.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Improvements would increase capacity, improve accessibility and mobility, and decrease congestion for travel demand to destinations along the I-70 Mountain Corridor as well as for interstate travel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Automobile and truck traffic would continue to degrade air quality, displace key wildlife habitat, and impede and endanger wildlife movements. Contamination from vehicles which then is washed into nearby streams would impact water quality. Under the preferred alternative, the increase in runoff would range from 16 percent to 24 percent. Removal, modification or disturbance of habitat for aquatic species would occur. Historic resources that could be affected include several nationally significant properties, including the Georgetown-Silver Plume National Historic Landmark District and as many as 75 different historic properties. Geologic hazards would need careful examination during Tier 2 processes to locate and design improvements to minimize effects. The preferred alternative would affect between 65 and 90 recreation sites. Transportation energy consumption would increase significantly, particularly under modal options involving highways. 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.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the original and revised draft EISs, see 05-0396D, Volume 29, Number 3 and 10-0498D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110073, Final EIS--527 pages, Appendices--855 pages, Technical Reports--6 volumes, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 25 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cost Assessments KW - Energy Consumption KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Colorado 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 - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127283?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-70+MOUNTAIN+CORRIDOR%2C+GARFIELD%2C+EAGLE%2C+SUMMIT%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-70+MOUNTAIN+CORRIDOR%2C+GARFIELD%2C+EAGLE%2C+SUMMIT%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR, GARFIELD, EAGLE, SUMMIT, CLEAR CREEK AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 24 of 39] T2 - I-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR, GARFIELD, EAGLE, SUMMIT, CLEAR CREEK AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 873127280; 14829-3_0024 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements along the 144-mile-long Interstate 70 (I-70) Mountain Corridor between Glenwood Springs and State Route 470 (C-470), Garfield, Eagle, Summit, Clear Creek and Jefferson counties, Colorado are proposed. The I-70 highway is the only east-west interstate to cross Colorado, directly serves more than 20 communities and a number of major ski resorts, provides access to the White River National Forest and the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests, and is an important freight corridor. Population growth in the Corridor and in the Denver metropolitan area has increased traffic volumes and recreational travelers currently experience substantial delays on weekends and holidays on the eastern side of the corridor while the western side experiences work trip delays during the week. This project began in 2000 and a revised programmatic draft EIS was issued in 2004. Twenty-one action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this first tier programmatic final EIS. The preferred alternative consists of near-term and general long-term improvements for the Corridor to meet the travel demand for 2050 and address immediate Corridor needs. To address future uncertainties, trigger points and stakeholder involvement would be used to reassess needs and to determine the most appropriate transportation improvements to meet future demand. The preferred alternative would implement a multimodal solution and include non-infrastructure related components, an advanced guideway system, and highway improvements. A specific advanced guideway system technology would be determined in subsequent study or a Tier 2 process and would be deployed to provide transit service from the Eagle County Regional Airport to C-470, a distance of 118 miles. It would be a fully elevated transit system on two tracks aligned to the north, south, or in the median of I-70. The system would connect to the regional transportation district network in Jefferson County and local and regional transit services at most of the 15 proposed transit stations along the route. The advanced guideway system would require new tunnel bores at both the Eisenhower-Johnson Memorial Tunnels and the Twin Tunnels. The six-lane highway widening improvements included with the preferred alternative maximum program have both 55 miles per hour (mph) and 65 mph design options. The 55 mph option would use the existing I-70 alignment. The 65 mph design would require additional tunnels at Dowd Canyon, Hidden Valley, and Floyd Hill. At Dowd Canyon, two tunnels would be required for eastbound and westbound traffic. The preferred alternative identifies a minimum and maximum range of multi-modal improvements ranging in cost from $16.1 billion to $20.2 billion estimated in year of expenditure dollars and assuming the mid year of construction for the whole alternative is 2025. The 21 action alternatives evaluated in this document range in cost from $1.9 billion to $20.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Improvements would increase capacity, improve accessibility and mobility, and decrease congestion for travel demand to destinations along the I-70 Mountain Corridor as well as for interstate travel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Automobile and truck traffic would continue to degrade air quality, displace key wildlife habitat, and impede and endanger wildlife movements. Contamination from vehicles which then is washed into nearby streams would impact water quality. Under the preferred alternative, the increase in runoff would range from 16 percent to 24 percent. Removal, modification or disturbance of habitat for aquatic species would occur. Historic resources that could be affected include several nationally significant properties, including the Georgetown-Silver Plume National Historic Landmark District and as many as 75 different historic properties. Geologic hazards would need careful examination during Tier 2 processes to locate and design improvements to minimize effects. The preferred alternative would affect between 65 and 90 recreation sites. Transportation energy consumption would increase significantly, particularly under modal options involving highways. 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.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the original and revised draft EISs, see 05-0396D, Volume 29, Number 3 and 10-0498D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110073, Final EIS--527 pages, Appendices--855 pages, Technical Reports--6 volumes, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 24 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cost Assessments KW - Energy Consumption KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Colorado 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 - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127280?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-70+MOUNTAIN+CORRIDOR%2C+GARFIELD%2C+EAGLE%2C+SUMMIT%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-70+MOUNTAIN+CORRIDOR%2C+GARFIELD%2C+EAGLE%2C+SUMMIT%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR, GARFIELD, EAGLE, SUMMIT, CLEAR CREEK AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 23 of 39] T2 - I-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR, GARFIELD, EAGLE, SUMMIT, CLEAR CREEK AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 873127275; 14829-3_0023 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements along the 144-mile-long Interstate 70 (I-70) Mountain Corridor between Glenwood Springs and State Route 470 (C-470), Garfield, Eagle, Summit, Clear Creek and Jefferson counties, Colorado are proposed. The I-70 highway is the only east-west interstate to cross Colorado, directly serves more than 20 communities and a number of major ski resorts, provides access to the White River National Forest and the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests, and is an important freight corridor. Population growth in the Corridor and in the Denver metropolitan area has increased traffic volumes and recreational travelers currently experience substantial delays on weekends and holidays on the eastern side of the corridor while the western side experiences work trip delays during the week. This project began in 2000 and a revised programmatic draft EIS was issued in 2004. Twenty-one action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this first tier programmatic final EIS. The preferred alternative consists of near-term and general long-term improvements for the Corridor to meet the travel demand for 2050 and address immediate Corridor needs. To address future uncertainties, trigger points and stakeholder involvement would be used to reassess needs and to determine the most appropriate transportation improvements to meet future demand. The preferred alternative would implement a multimodal solution and include non-infrastructure related components, an advanced guideway system, and highway improvements. A specific advanced guideway system technology would be determined in subsequent study or a Tier 2 process and would be deployed to provide transit service from the Eagle County Regional Airport to C-470, a distance of 118 miles. It would be a fully elevated transit system on two tracks aligned to the north, south, or in the median of I-70. The system would connect to the regional transportation district network in Jefferson County and local and regional transit services at most of the 15 proposed transit stations along the route. The advanced guideway system would require new tunnel bores at both the Eisenhower-Johnson Memorial Tunnels and the Twin Tunnels. The six-lane highway widening improvements included with the preferred alternative maximum program have both 55 miles per hour (mph) and 65 mph design options. The 55 mph option would use the existing I-70 alignment. The 65 mph design would require additional tunnels at Dowd Canyon, Hidden Valley, and Floyd Hill. At Dowd Canyon, two tunnels would be required for eastbound and westbound traffic. The preferred alternative identifies a minimum and maximum range of multi-modal improvements ranging in cost from $16.1 billion to $20.2 billion estimated in year of expenditure dollars and assuming the mid year of construction for the whole alternative is 2025. The 21 action alternatives evaluated in this document range in cost from $1.9 billion to $20.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Improvements would increase capacity, improve accessibility and mobility, and decrease congestion for travel demand to destinations along the I-70 Mountain Corridor as well as for interstate travel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Automobile and truck traffic would continue to degrade air quality, displace key wildlife habitat, and impede and endanger wildlife movements. Contamination from vehicles which then is washed into nearby streams would impact water quality. Under the preferred alternative, the increase in runoff would range from 16 percent to 24 percent. Removal, modification or disturbance of habitat for aquatic species would occur. Historic resources that could be affected include several nationally significant properties, including the Georgetown-Silver Plume National Historic Landmark District and as many as 75 different historic properties. Geologic hazards would need careful examination during Tier 2 processes to locate and design improvements to minimize effects. The preferred alternative would affect between 65 and 90 recreation sites. Transportation energy consumption would increase significantly, particularly under modal options involving highways. 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.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the original and revised draft EISs, see 05-0396D, Volume 29, Number 3 and 10-0498D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110073, Final EIS--527 pages, Appendices--855 pages, Technical Reports--6 volumes, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 23 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cost Assessments KW - Energy Consumption KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Colorado 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 - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127275?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-70+MOUNTAIN+CORRIDOR%2C+GARFIELD%2C+EAGLE%2C+SUMMIT%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-70+MOUNTAIN+CORRIDOR%2C+GARFIELD%2C+EAGLE%2C+SUMMIT%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR, GARFIELD, EAGLE, SUMMIT, CLEAR CREEK AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 5 of 39] T2 - I-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR, GARFIELD, EAGLE, SUMMIT, CLEAR CREEK AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 873126665; 14829-3_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements along the 144-mile-long Interstate 70 (I-70) Mountain Corridor between Glenwood Springs and State Route 470 (C-470), Garfield, Eagle, Summit, Clear Creek and Jefferson counties, Colorado are proposed. The I-70 highway is the only east-west interstate to cross Colorado, directly serves more than 20 communities and a number of major ski resorts, provides access to the White River National Forest and the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests, and is an important freight corridor. Population growth in the Corridor and in the Denver metropolitan area has increased traffic volumes and recreational travelers currently experience substantial delays on weekends and holidays on the eastern side of the corridor while the western side experiences work trip delays during the week. This project began in 2000 and a revised programmatic draft EIS was issued in 2004. Twenty-one action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this first tier programmatic final EIS. The preferred alternative consists of near-term and general long-term improvements for the Corridor to meet the travel demand for 2050 and address immediate Corridor needs. To address future uncertainties, trigger points and stakeholder involvement would be used to reassess needs and to determine the most appropriate transportation improvements to meet future demand. The preferred alternative would implement a multimodal solution and include non-infrastructure related components, an advanced guideway system, and highway improvements. A specific advanced guideway system technology would be determined in subsequent study or a Tier 2 process and would be deployed to provide transit service from the Eagle County Regional Airport to C-470, a distance of 118 miles. It would be a fully elevated transit system on two tracks aligned to the north, south, or in the median of I-70. The system would connect to the regional transportation district network in Jefferson County and local and regional transit services at most of the 15 proposed transit stations along the route. The advanced guideway system would require new tunnel bores at both the Eisenhower-Johnson Memorial Tunnels and the Twin Tunnels. The six-lane highway widening improvements included with the preferred alternative maximum program have both 55 miles per hour (mph) and 65 mph design options. The 55 mph option would use the existing I-70 alignment. The 65 mph design would require additional tunnels at Dowd Canyon, Hidden Valley, and Floyd Hill. At Dowd Canyon, two tunnels would be required for eastbound and westbound traffic. The preferred alternative identifies a minimum and maximum range of multi-modal improvements ranging in cost from $16.1 billion to $20.2 billion estimated in year of expenditure dollars and assuming the mid year of construction for the whole alternative is 2025. The 21 action alternatives evaluated in this document range in cost from $1.9 billion to $20.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Improvements would increase capacity, improve accessibility and mobility, and decrease congestion for travel demand to destinations along the I-70 Mountain Corridor as well as for interstate travel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Automobile and truck traffic would continue to degrade air quality, displace key wildlife habitat, and impede and endanger wildlife movements. Contamination from vehicles which then is washed into nearby streams would impact water quality. Under the preferred alternative, the increase in runoff would range from 16 percent to 24 percent. Removal, modification or disturbance of habitat for aquatic species would occur. Historic resources that could be affected include several nationally significant properties, including the Georgetown-Silver Plume National Historic Landmark District and as many as 75 different historic properties. Geologic hazards would need careful examination during Tier 2 processes to locate and design improvements to minimize effects. The preferred alternative would affect between 65 and 90 recreation sites. Transportation energy consumption would increase significantly, particularly under modal options involving highways. 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.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the original and revised draft EISs, see 05-0396D, Volume 29, Number 3 and 10-0498D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110073, Final EIS--527 pages, Appendices--855 pages, Technical Reports--6 volumes, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cost Assessments KW - Energy Consumption KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Colorado 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 - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126665?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-70+MOUNTAIN+CORRIDOR%2C+GARFIELD%2C+EAGLE%2C+SUMMIT%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-70+MOUNTAIN+CORRIDOR%2C+GARFIELD%2C+EAGLE%2C+SUMMIT%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR, GARFIELD, EAGLE, SUMMIT, CLEAR CREEK AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 2 of 39] T2 - I-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR, GARFIELD, EAGLE, SUMMIT, CLEAR CREEK AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 873126660; 14829-3_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements along the 144-mile-long Interstate 70 (I-70) Mountain Corridor between Glenwood Springs and State Route 470 (C-470), Garfield, Eagle, Summit, Clear Creek and Jefferson counties, Colorado are proposed. The I-70 highway is the only east-west interstate to cross Colorado, directly serves more than 20 communities and a number of major ski resorts, provides access to the White River National Forest and the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests, and is an important freight corridor. Population growth in the Corridor and in the Denver metropolitan area has increased traffic volumes and recreational travelers currently experience substantial delays on weekends and holidays on the eastern side of the corridor while the western side experiences work trip delays during the week. This project began in 2000 and a revised programmatic draft EIS was issued in 2004. Twenty-one action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this first tier programmatic final EIS. The preferred alternative consists of near-term and general long-term improvements for the Corridor to meet the travel demand for 2050 and address immediate Corridor needs. To address future uncertainties, trigger points and stakeholder involvement would be used to reassess needs and to determine the most appropriate transportation improvements to meet future demand. The preferred alternative would implement a multimodal solution and include non-infrastructure related components, an advanced guideway system, and highway improvements. A specific advanced guideway system technology would be determined in subsequent study or a Tier 2 process and would be deployed to provide transit service from the Eagle County Regional Airport to C-470, a distance of 118 miles. It would be a fully elevated transit system on two tracks aligned to the north, south, or in the median of I-70. The system would connect to the regional transportation district network in Jefferson County and local and regional transit services at most of the 15 proposed transit stations along the route. The advanced guideway system would require new tunnel bores at both the Eisenhower-Johnson Memorial Tunnels and the Twin Tunnels. The six-lane highway widening improvements included with the preferred alternative maximum program have both 55 miles per hour (mph) and 65 mph design options. The 55 mph option would use the existing I-70 alignment. The 65 mph design would require additional tunnels at Dowd Canyon, Hidden Valley, and Floyd Hill. At Dowd Canyon, two tunnels would be required for eastbound and westbound traffic. The preferred alternative identifies a minimum and maximum range of multi-modal improvements ranging in cost from $16.1 billion to $20.2 billion estimated in year of expenditure dollars and assuming the mid year of construction for the whole alternative is 2025. The 21 action alternatives evaluated in this document range in cost from $1.9 billion to $20.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Improvements would increase capacity, improve accessibility and mobility, and decrease congestion for travel demand to destinations along the I-70 Mountain Corridor as well as for interstate travel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Automobile and truck traffic would continue to degrade air quality, displace key wildlife habitat, and impede and endanger wildlife movements. Contamination from vehicles which then is washed into nearby streams would impact water quality. Under the preferred alternative, the increase in runoff would range from 16 percent to 24 percent. Removal, modification or disturbance of habitat for aquatic species would occur. Historic resources that could be affected include several nationally significant properties, including the Georgetown-Silver Plume National Historic Landmark District and as many as 75 different historic properties. Geologic hazards would need careful examination during Tier 2 processes to locate and design improvements to minimize effects. The preferred alternative would affect between 65 and 90 recreation sites. Transportation energy consumption would increase significantly, particularly under modal options involving highways. 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.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the original and revised draft EISs, see 05-0396D, Volume 29, Number 3 and 10-0498D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110073, Final EIS--527 pages, Appendices--855 pages, Technical Reports--6 volumes, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cost Assessments KW - Energy Consumption KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Colorado 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 - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126660?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-70+MOUNTAIN+CORRIDOR%2C+GARFIELD%2C+EAGLE%2C+SUMMIT%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-70+MOUNTAIN+CORRIDOR%2C+GARFIELD%2C+EAGLE%2C+SUMMIT%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 860869116; 14827 AB - PURPOSE: The mining of phosphate ore at the Blackfoot Bridge Mine, located 10 miles northeast of Soda Springs in Caribou County, Idaho is proposed. P4 Production, LLC (P4), a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto Company, Inc., submitted an initial mine and reclamation plan in November 2005 and a revised plan in October 2008. The revised plan proposes a new open pit phosphate mining operation on federal mineral leases that would include external overburden piles, a haul road, and a water management plan. Under the proposed action, phosphate ore would be mined and hauled eight miles to P4's Soda Springs elemental phosphorous plant for processing. No processing other than typical crushing and screening operations would occur at the mine site and all chemical processing activities would occur at the Soda Springs plant. The Blackfoot Bridge Mine ore reserve would be developed using an open pit mining method on a series of bench cuts, using a combination of in-pit retreating ramps and backfill ramps. The primary equipment for ore and overburden mining would be a combination of trucks, track-mounted excavators, bulldozers, and front-end loaders. A track-hoe excavator would also be used to maximize recovery of ore in the bottom of the pit. The project would be mined in a phased approach with mining and reclamation activities continuing for 17 years. Ore would be recovered from three mine pits beginning in Mid Pit, followed by the North Pit and South Pit. All overburden would either be backfilled into mined-out portions of the mine pits or placed in the external east overburden pile or northwest overburden pile. Facilities would include: 1) an ore stockpile and truck loading area; 2) an ore truck turnaround loop and equipment yard; 3) two water management ponds and other water control structures; 4) topsoil stockpiles; 5) sediment control dams; 6) roads; and 7) sediment control structures. A surface water diversion ditch would be constructed from the unnamed tributary to Fish Pond to the water management ponds. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, a layer of impermeable material would be constructed between the segregated Meade Peak overburden and the applied growth medium to eliminate potential effects of water infiltrating into the backfilled pits and external overburden piles. Alternative 1A, which is the preferred alternative, would use a geosynthetic clay laminate layer (GCLL) cover system over core materials in the east overburden pile and overburden pits. Alternative 1B would use a GCLL over the entire east overburden pile and overburden pits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would ensure economically viable development of phosphate resources and allow the lessee to exercise its right to develop those resources. Reduced infiltration of precipitation into the backfilled overburden and east overburden pile would reduce the concentration of selenium and constituents of particular concern in groundwater that discharges to the Blackfoot River to levels that would meet local water quality standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of 91 million bank cubic yards of overburden would disturb soils, increase erosion and sediment transport rates, and result in the loss of 99 acres of wildlife habitat and of 9.4 acres of wetlands. Mining would result in release of selenium and trace metals and groundwater quality would be potentially impacted by seepage from the proposed overburden piles and backfilled pits. Construction of facilities would have effects on topography and stability of the landscape. Surface disturbance would total 739 acres and 65 acres not reclaimed would represent long-term modification. Annual fugitive dust emissions from mining operations would be 138 tons per year. Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, potential reduction in groundwater levels would be greater than that predicted under the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0265D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110071, 921 pages and maps, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-ID-320-2006-EIS-1553 KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Diversion Structures KW - Emissions KW - Erosion KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Phosphates KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Soils KW - Water Quality KW - Idaho KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/860869116?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR, GARFIELD, EAGLE, SUMMIT, CLEAR CREEK AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 860868978; 14829 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements along the 144-mile-long Interstate 70 (I-70) Mountain Corridor between Glenwood Springs and State Route 470 (C-470), Garfield, Eagle, Summit, Clear Creek and Jefferson counties, Colorado are proposed. The I-70 highway is the only east-west interstate to cross Colorado, directly serves more than 20 communities and a number of major ski resorts, provides access to the White River National Forest and the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests, and is an important freight corridor. Population growth in the Corridor and in the Denver metropolitan area has increased traffic volumes and recreational travelers currently experience substantial delays on weekends and holidays on the eastern side of the corridor while the western side experiences work trip delays during the week. This project began in 2000 and a revised programmatic draft EIS was issued in 2004. Twenty-one action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this first tier programmatic final EIS. The preferred alternative consists of near-term and general long-term improvements for the Corridor to meet the travel demand for 2050 and address immediate Corridor needs. To address future uncertainties, trigger points and stakeholder involvement would be used to reassess needs and to determine the most appropriate transportation improvements to meet future demand. The preferred alternative would implement a multimodal solution and include non-infrastructure related components, an advanced guideway system, and highway improvements. A specific advanced guideway system technology would be determined in subsequent study or a Tier 2 process and would be deployed to provide transit service from the Eagle County Regional Airport to C-470, a distance of 118 miles. It would be a fully elevated transit system on two tracks aligned to the north, south, or in the median of I-70. The system would connect to the regional transportation district network in Jefferson County and local and regional transit services at most of the 15 proposed transit stations along the route. The advanced guideway system would require new tunnel bores at both the Eisenhower-Johnson Memorial Tunnels and the Twin Tunnels. The six-lane highway widening improvements included with the preferred alternative maximum program have both 55 miles per hour (mph) and 65 mph design options. The 55 mph option would use the existing I-70 alignment. The 65 mph design would require additional tunnels at Dowd Canyon, Hidden Valley, and Floyd Hill. At Dowd Canyon, two tunnels would be required for eastbound and westbound traffic. The preferred alternative identifies a minimum and maximum range of multi-modal improvements ranging in cost from $16.1 billion to $20.2 billion estimated in year of expenditure dollars and assuming the mid year of construction for the whole alternative is 2025. The 21 action alternatives evaluated in this document range in cost from $1.9 billion to $20.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Improvements would increase capacity, improve accessibility and mobility, and decrease congestion for travel demand to destinations along the I-70 Mountain Corridor as well as for interstate travel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Automobile and truck traffic would continue to degrade air quality, displace key wildlife habitat, and impede and endanger wildlife movements. Contamination from vehicles which then is washed into nearby streams would impact water quality. Under the preferred alternative, the increase in runoff would range from 16 percent to 24 percent. Removal, modification or disturbance of habitat for aquatic species would occur. Historic resources that could be affected include several nationally significant properties, including the Georgetown-Silver Plume National Historic Landmark District and as many as 75 different historic properties. Geologic hazards would need careful examination during Tier 2 processes to locate and design improvements to minimize effects. The preferred alternative would affect between 65 and 90 recreation sites. Transportation energy consumption would increase significantly, particularly under modal options involving highways. 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.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the original and revised draft EISs, see 05-0396D, Volume 29, Number 3 and 10-0498D, Volume 34, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 110073, Final EIS--527 pages, Appendices--855 pages, Technical Reports--6 volumes, March 11, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cost Assessments KW - Energy Consumption KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Colorado 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 - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/860868978?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-70+MOUNTAIN+CORRIDOR%2C+GARFIELD%2C+EAGLE%2C+SUMMIT%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-70+MOUNTAIN+CORRIDOR%2C+GARFIELD%2C+EAGLE%2C+SUMMIT%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTIES%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 - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Toxicity of Wwi Era Chemicals Studied at Spring Valley, Washington D.C. T2 - 50th Anniversary Annual Meeting of the Society of Toxicology (SOT 2011) AN - 1312996837; 6046367 JF - 50th Anniversary Annual Meeting of the Society of Toxicology (SOT 2011) AU - Opdyke, C Y1 - 2011/03/06/ PY - 2011 DA - 2011 Mar 06 KW - USA, Washington KW - Toxicity KW - Chemicals UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1312996837?accountid=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=50th+Anniversary+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Society+of+Toxicology+%28SOT+2011%29&rft.atitle=Toxicity+of+Wwi+Era+Chemicals+Studied+at+Spring+Valley%2C+Washington+D.C.&rft.au=Opdyke%2C+C&rft.aulast=Opdyke&rft.aufirst=C&rft.date=2011-03-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=50th+Anniversary+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Society+of+Toxicology+%28SOT+2011%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.toxicology.org/AI/PUB/Toxicologist11.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2013-02-26 N1 - Last updated - 2013-02-28 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Environmental Risk Issues Associated with a Munitions Response Site in Northwest Washington, Dc the Spring Valley Formerly Used Defense Site T2 - 50th Anniversary Annual Meeting of the Society of Toxicology (SOT 2011) AN - 1312996808; 6046366 JF - 50th Anniversary Annual Meeting of the Society of Toxicology (SOT 2011) AU - Noble, D Y1 - 2011/03/06/ PY - 2011 DA - 2011 Mar 06 KW - valleys UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1312996808?accountid=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=50th+Anniversary+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Society+of+Toxicology+%28SOT+2011%29&rft.atitle=Environmental+Risk+Issues+Associated+with+a+Munitions+Response+Site+in+Northwest+Washington%2C+Dc+the+Spring+Valley+Formerly+Used+Defense+Site&rft.au=Noble%2C+D&rft.aulast=Noble&rft.aufirst=D&rft.date=2011-03-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=50th+Anniversary+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Society+of+Toxicology+%28SOT+2011%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.toxicology.org/AI/PUB/Toxicologist11.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2013-02-26 N1 - Last updated - 2013-02-28 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Biomarkers of Neurotoxicity in a Rat Model of Occupational Chlorpyrifos (CPF) Exposure T2 - 50th Anniversary Annual Meeting of the Society of Toxicology (SOT 2011) AN - 1312904199; 6046766 JF - 50th Anniversary Annual Meeting of the Society of Toxicology (SOT 2011) AU - Hussainzada, N AU - Jackson, D AU - Bruun, D AU - Milatovic, D AU - Lewis, J AU - Banks, C AU - Aschner, M AU - Browne, R AU - Olson, J AU - Lein, P Y1 - 2011/03/06/ PY - 2011 DA - 2011 Mar 06 KW - Pesticides KW - Bioindicators KW - Neurotoxicity KW - Chlorpyrifos KW - Occupational exposure KW - biomarkers KW - Biomarkers UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1312904199?accountid=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=50th+Anniversary+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Society+of+Toxicology+%28SOT+2011%29&rft.atitle=Biomarkers+of+Neurotoxicity+in+a+Rat+Model+of+Occupational+Chlorpyrifos+%28CPF%29+Exposure&rft.au=Hussainzada%2C+N%3BJackson%2C+D%3BBruun%2C+D%3BMilatovic%2C+D%3BLewis%2C+J%3BBanks%2C+C%3BAschner%2C+M%3BBrowne%2C+R%3BOlson%2C+J%3BLein%2C+P&rft.aulast=Hussainzada&rft.aufirst=N&rft.date=2011-03-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=50th+Anniversary+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Society+of+Toxicology+%28SOT+2011%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.toxicology.org/AI/PUB/Toxicologist11.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2013-02-26 N1 - Last updated - 2013-02-28 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EVERGLADES RESTORATION TRANSITION PLAN, BROWARD AND MIAMI-DADE COUNTIES, FLORIDA. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - EVERGLADES RESTORATION TRANSITION PLAN, BROWARD AND MIAMI-DADE COUNTIES, FLORIDA. AN - 873130594; 14813-7_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The modification of 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 while maintaining project purposes. The Everglades Restoration Transition Plan (ERTP) will 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 Everglades National Park (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. In early 2009, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) identified the need for reexamination of IOP water management operations due to endangered species concerns within Water Conservation Area 3A (WCA-3A) and the fact that the 2006 FWS IOP Biological Opinion was set to expire on November 17, 2010. Consultations led to the conclusion that the IOP is no longer a viable option for water management within WCA-3A and the South Dade Conveyance System (SDCS). WCA-3A supports extensive and relatively intact 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 the tribe members 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 which would continue the current operating regime (IOP), are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 9E1, which is the tentatively selected plan, a revised WCA-3A interim regulation schedule would allow for the ability to make maximum releases earlier while providing a greater amount of time for transitioning 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, restoring vegetation within the area and directly benefiting snail kite and their primary food source, the apple snail. Protective levels for the CSSS would be maintained and periodic scientist calls would take advantage of the best science currently available to enable real-time water management decisions. Implementation of the tentatively selected 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 SDCS, but agricultural impacts would be negligible. Further fluctuations created through controlled staging of the water could adversely impact cultural resources. Minor impacts to airboat access to some areas of WCA-3A during dry periods could occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110057, Volume1--300 pages, Volume 2 (Appendices)--336 pages, Volume 3 (Appendices)--1,046 pages, March 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Land Use KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Flood Control 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/873130594?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-04&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 - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EVERGLADES RESTORATION TRANSITION PLAN, BROWARD AND MIAMI-DADE COUNTIES, FLORIDA. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - EVERGLADES RESTORATION TRANSITION PLAN, BROWARD AND MIAMI-DADE COUNTIES, FLORIDA. AN - 873130573; 14813-7_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The modification of 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 while maintaining project purposes. The Everglades Restoration Transition Plan (ERTP) will 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 Everglades National Park (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. In early 2009, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) identified the need for reexamination of IOP water management operations due to endangered species concerns within Water Conservation Area 3A (WCA-3A) and the fact that the 2006 FWS IOP Biological Opinion was set to expire on November 17, 2010. Consultations led to the conclusion that the IOP is no longer a viable option for water management within WCA-3A and the South Dade Conveyance System (SDCS). WCA-3A supports extensive and relatively intact 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 the tribe members 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 which would continue the current operating regime (IOP), are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 9E1, which is the tentatively selected plan, a revised WCA-3A interim regulation schedule would allow for the ability to make maximum releases earlier while providing a greater amount of time for transitioning 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, restoring vegetation within the area and directly benefiting snail kite and their primary food source, the apple snail. Protective levels for the CSSS would be maintained and periodic scientist calls would take advantage of the best science currently available to enable real-time water management decisions. Implementation of the tentatively selected 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 SDCS, but agricultural impacts would be negligible. Further fluctuations created through controlled staging of the water could adversely impact cultural resources. Minor impacts to airboat access to some areas of WCA-3A during dry periods could occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110057, Volume1--300 pages, Volume 2 (Appendices)--336 pages, Volume 3 (Appendices)--1,046 pages, March 4, 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 - 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/873130573?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-04&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 - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EVERGLADES RESTORATION TRANSITION PLAN, BROWARD AND MIAMI-DADE COUNTIES, FLORIDA. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - EVERGLADES RESTORATION TRANSITION PLAN, BROWARD AND MIAMI-DADE COUNTIES, FLORIDA. AN - 873130554; 14813-7_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The modification of 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 while maintaining project purposes. The Everglades Restoration Transition Plan (ERTP) will 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 Everglades National Park (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. In early 2009, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) identified the need for reexamination of IOP water management operations due to endangered species concerns within Water Conservation Area 3A (WCA-3A) and the fact that the 2006 FWS IOP Biological Opinion was set to expire on November 17, 2010. Consultations led to the conclusion that the IOP is no longer a viable option for water management within WCA-3A and the South Dade Conveyance System (SDCS). WCA-3A supports extensive and relatively intact 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 the tribe members 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 which would continue the current operating regime (IOP), are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 9E1, which is the tentatively selected plan, a revised WCA-3A interim regulation schedule would allow for the ability to make maximum releases earlier while providing a greater amount of time for transitioning 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, restoring vegetation within the area and directly benefiting snail kite and their primary food source, the apple snail. Protective levels for the CSSS would be maintained and periodic scientist calls would take advantage of the best science currently available to enable real-time water management decisions. Implementation of the tentatively selected 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 SDCS, but agricultural impacts would be negligible. Further fluctuations created through controlled staging of the water could adversely impact cultural resources. Minor impacts to airboat access to some areas of WCA-3A during dry periods could occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110057, Volume1--300 pages, Volume 2 (Appendices)--336 pages, Volume 3 (Appendices)--1,046 pages, March 4, 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 - 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/873130554?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-04&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 - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SABINE-NECHES WATERWAY CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, SOUTHEAST TEXAS AND SOUTHWEST LOUISIANA. [Part 5 of 5] T2 - SABINE-NECHES WATERWAY CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, SOUTHEAST TEXAS AND SOUTHWEST LOUISIANA. AN - 873130426; 14815-9_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the Sabine-Neches Waterway (SNWW), including modifications of the channels serving the ports of Beaumont, Port Arthur, and Orange, Texas, are proposed. The SNWW is located on the upper Texas Gulf Coast in Jefferson and Orange counties, Texas and Cameron and Calcasieu parishes, Louisiana. The 64-mile-long channel begins offshore, follows the west side of Sabine Lake and terminates just upstream of the Beaumont turning basin on the Neches River. Sixty percent of the SNWW tonnage total is comprised of deep draft movements, the vast majority of which are shipments of crude petroleum or petroleum/chemical products in and out of 20 waterfront facilities in Port Arthur and 27 facilities in Beaumont. SNWW's crude petroleum imports represent four percent of the US total. The existing SNWW navigation channel is congested and its 40-foot project depth was designed for smaller vessels than are being used today. A No Action Alternative and six structural alternatives are evaluated in detail in this final EIS. Alternatives A through F would deepen the SNWW to 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, or 50 feet, respectively. The preferred alternative (Alternative D) would: 1) deepen the SNWW to Beaumont to 48 feet; 2) extend the Sabine Bank Channel an additional 13.2 miles into the Gulf of Mexico; 3) taper the Sabine Bank Channel from 800 feet wide to 700 feet wide through the end of the Sabine Bank Channel extension; 4) deepen and widen Taylor Bayou channels and turning basins; and 5) construct three new anchorage/turning basins on the Neches River. Dredged material produced by construction and during maintenance dredging over the 50-year period of analysis would be managed in accordance with a plan that includes 16 existing upland placement areas, four existing and four new ocean dredged material disposal sites (ODMDSs), and beneficial use features. Construction and maintenance dredging are projected to yield 98 million cubic yards and 650 million cubic yards of material, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the channel improvement project would improve the transportation efficiency of the SNWW's deep-draft navigation system and support industry at critical ports. Dredged material would be used beneficially to restore wetlands within the study area's 480 square miles of sensitive coastal habitats. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging activities, new ODMDSs, and marsh restoration would result in temporary impacts to water quality and benthic organisms and habitat. A small increase in salinity over 35,600 acres of fresh marsh and 804 acres of swamps in Texas and Louisiana and over large areas of estuarine marsh habitat (over 22,200 acres in Texas and 153,000 acres in Louisiana) would reduce biological productivity. An upland confined placement area would convert 86 acres of wetlands. New work dredging would likely adversely affect, but not likely jeopardize the continued existence of, loggerhead, Kemp's ridley, and green sea turtles. Impacts to shoreline birds and their habitat could result from the placement of maintenance material on the Gulf shoreline. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1412 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0176D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110059, Volume I: Final Feasibility Report--743 pages and maps, Volume II: Final EIS--552 pages, Volumes III and IV: Appendices--1,400 pages, March 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Fish KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Navigation KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Salinity KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Shores KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Neches River KW - Texas KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 102 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130426?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SABINE-NECHES+WATERWAY+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SOUTHEAST+TEXAS+AND+SOUTHWEST+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=SABINE-NECHES+WATERWAY+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SOUTHEAST+TEXAS+AND+SOUTHWEST+LOUISIANA.&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 - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SABINE-NECHES WATERWAY CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, SOUTHEAST TEXAS AND SOUTHWEST LOUISIANA. [Part 4 of 5] T2 - SABINE-NECHES WATERWAY CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, SOUTHEAST TEXAS AND SOUTHWEST LOUISIANA. AN - 873130403; 14815-9_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the Sabine-Neches Waterway (SNWW), including modifications of the channels serving the ports of Beaumont, Port Arthur, and Orange, Texas, are proposed. The SNWW is located on the upper Texas Gulf Coast in Jefferson and Orange counties, Texas and Cameron and Calcasieu parishes, Louisiana. The 64-mile-long channel begins offshore, follows the west side of Sabine Lake and terminates just upstream of the Beaumont turning basin on the Neches River. Sixty percent of the SNWW tonnage total is comprised of deep draft movements, the vast majority of which are shipments of crude petroleum or petroleum/chemical products in and out of 20 waterfront facilities in Port Arthur and 27 facilities in Beaumont. SNWW's crude petroleum imports represent four percent of the US total. The existing SNWW navigation channel is congested and its 40-foot project depth was designed for smaller vessels than are being used today. A No Action Alternative and six structural alternatives are evaluated in detail in this final EIS. Alternatives A through F would deepen the SNWW to 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, or 50 feet, respectively. The preferred alternative (Alternative D) would: 1) deepen the SNWW to Beaumont to 48 feet; 2) extend the Sabine Bank Channel an additional 13.2 miles into the Gulf of Mexico; 3) taper the Sabine Bank Channel from 800 feet wide to 700 feet wide through the end of the Sabine Bank Channel extension; 4) deepen and widen Taylor Bayou channels and turning basins; and 5) construct three new anchorage/turning basins on the Neches River. Dredged material produced by construction and during maintenance dredging over the 50-year period of analysis would be managed in accordance with a plan that includes 16 existing upland placement areas, four existing and four new ocean dredged material disposal sites (ODMDSs), and beneficial use features. Construction and maintenance dredging are projected to yield 98 million cubic yards and 650 million cubic yards of material, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the channel improvement project would improve the transportation efficiency of the SNWW's deep-draft navigation system and support industry at critical ports. Dredged material would be used beneficially to restore wetlands within the study area's 480 square miles of sensitive coastal habitats. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging activities, new ODMDSs, and marsh restoration would result in temporary impacts to water quality and benthic organisms and habitat. A small increase in salinity over 35,600 acres of fresh marsh and 804 acres of swamps in Texas and Louisiana and over large areas of estuarine marsh habitat (over 22,200 acres in Texas and 153,000 acres in Louisiana) would reduce biological productivity. An upland confined placement area would convert 86 acres of wetlands. New work dredging would likely adversely affect, but not likely jeopardize the continued existence of, loggerhead, Kemp's ridley, and green sea turtles. Impacts to shoreline birds and their habitat could result from the placement of maintenance material on the Gulf shoreline. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1412 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0176D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110059, Volume I: Final Feasibility Report--743 pages and maps, Volume II: Final EIS--552 pages, Volumes III and IV: Appendices--1,400 pages, March 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Fish KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Navigation KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Salinity KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Shores KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Neches River KW - Texas KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 102 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130403?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SABINE-NECHES+WATERWAY+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SOUTHEAST+TEXAS+AND+SOUTHWEST+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=SABINE-NECHES+WATERWAY+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SOUTHEAST+TEXAS+AND+SOUTHWEST+LOUISIANA.&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 - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SABINE-NECHES WATERWAY CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, SOUTHEAST TEXAS AND SOUTHWEST LOUISIANA. [Part 3 of 5] T2 - SABINE-NECHES WATERWAY CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, SOUTHEAST TEXAS AND SOUTHWEST LOUISIANA. AN - 873130364; 14815-9_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the Sabine-Neches Waterway (SNWW), including modifications of the channels serving the ports of Beaumont, Port Arthur, and Orange, Texas, are proposed. The SNWW is located on the upper Texas Gulf Coast in Jefferson and Orange counties, Texas and Cameron and Calcasieu parishes, Louisiana. The 64-mile-long channel begins offshore, follows the west side of Sabine Lake and terminates just upstream of the Beaumont turning basin on the Neches River. Sixty percent of the SNWW tonnage total is comprised of deep draft movements, the vast majority of which are shipments of crude petroleum or petroleum/chemical products in and out of 20 waterfront facilities in Port Arthur and 27 facilities in Beaumont. SNWW's crude petroleum imports represent four percent of the US total. The existing SNWW navigation channel is congested and its 40-foot project depth was designed for smaller vessels than are being used today. A No Action Alternative and six structural alternatives are evaluated in detail in this final EIS. Alternatives A through F would deepen the SNWW to 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, or 50 feet, respectively. The preferred alternative (Alternative D) would: 1) deepen the SNWW to Beaumont to 48 feet; 2) extend the Sabine Bank Channel an additional 13.2 miles into the Gulf of Mexico; 3) taper the Sabine Bank Channel from 800 feet wide to 700 feet wide through the end of the Sabine Bank Channel extension; 4) deepen and widen Taylor Bayou channels and turning basins; and 5) construct three new anchorage/turning basins on the Neches River. Dredged material produced by construction and during maintenance dredging over the 50-year period of analysis would be managed in accordance with a plan that includes 16 existing upland placement areas, four existing and four new ocean dredged material disposal sites (ODMDSs), and beneficial use features. Construction and maintenance dredging are projected to yield 98 million cubic yards and 650 million cubic yards of material, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the channel improvement project would improve the transportation efficiency of the SNWW's deep-draft navigation system and support industry at critical ports. Dredged material would be used beneficially to restore wetlands within the study area's 480 square miles of sensitive coastal habitats. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging activities, new ODMDSs, and marsh restoration would result in temporary impacts to water quality and benthic organisms and habitat. A small increase in salinity over 35,600 acres of fresh marsh and 804 acres of swamps in Texas and Louisiana and over large areas of estuarine marsh habitat (over 22,200 acres in Texas and 153,000 acres in Louisiana) would reduce biological productivity. An upland confined placement area would convert 86 acres of wetlands. New work dredging would likely adversely affect, but not likely jeopardize the continued existence of, loggerhead, Kemp's ridley, and green sea turtles. Impacts to shoreline birds and their habitat could result from the placement of maintenance material on the Gulf shoreline. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1412 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0176D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110059, Volume I: Final Feasibility Report--743 pages and maps, Volume II: Final EIS--552 pages, Volumes III and IV: Appendices--1,400 pages, March 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Fish KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Navigation KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Salinity KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Shores KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Neches River KW - Texas KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 102 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130364?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SABINE-NECHES+WATERWAY+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SOUTHEAST+TEXAS+AND+SOUTHWEST+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=SABINE-NECHES+WATERWAY+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SOUTHEAST+TEXAS+AND+SOUTHWEST+LOUISIANA.&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 - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SABINE-NECHES WATERWAY CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, SOUTHEAST TEXAS AND SOUTHWEST LOUISIANA. [Part 2 of 5] T2 - SABINE-NECHES WATERWAY CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, SOUTHEAST TEXAS AND SOUTHWEST LOUISIANA. AN - 873130342; 14815-9_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the Sabine-Neches Waterway (SNWW), including modifications of the channels serving the ports of Beaumont, Port Arthur, and Orange, Texas, are proposed. The SNWW is located on the upper Texas Gulf Coast in Jefferson and Orange counties, Texas and Cameron and Calcasieu parishes, Louisiana. The 64-mile-long channel begins offshore, follows the west side of Sabine Lake and terminates just upstream of the Beaumont turning basin on the Neches River. Sixty percent of the SNWW tonnage total is comprised of deep draft movements, the vast majority of which are shipments of crude petroleum or petroleum/chemical products in and out of 20 waterfront facilities in Port Arthur and 27 facilities in Beaumont. SNWW's crude petroleum imports represent four percent of the US total. The existing SNWW navigation channel is congested and its 40-foot project depth was designed for smaller vessels than are being used today. A No Action Alternative and six structural alternatives are evaluated in detail in this final EIS. Alternatives A through F would deepen the SNWW to 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, or 50 feet, respectively. The preferred alternative (Alternative D) would: 1) deepen the SNWW to Beaumont to 48 feet; 2) extend the Sabine Bank Channel an additional 13.2 miles into the Gulf of Mexico; 3) taper the Sabine Bank Channel from 800 feet wide to 700 feet wide through the end of the Sabine Bank Channel extension; 4) deepen and widen Taylor Bayou channels and turning basins; and 5) construct three new anchorage/turning basins on the Neches River. Dredged material produced by construction and during maintenance dredging over the 50-year period of analysis would be managed in accordance with a plan that includes 16 existing upland placement areas, four existing and four new ocean dredged material disposal sites (ODMDSs), and beneficial use features. Construction and maintenance dredging are projected to yield 98 million cubic yards and 650 million cubic yards of material, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the channel improvement project would improve the transportation efficiency of the SNWW's deep-draft navigation system and support industry at critical ports. Dredged material would be used beneficially to restore wetlands within the study area's 480 square miles of sensitive coastal habitats. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging activities, new ODMDSs, and marsh restoration would result in temporary impacts to water quality and benthic organisms and habitat. A small increase in salinity over 35,600 acres of fresh marsh and 804 acres of swamps in Texas and Louisiana and over large areas of estuarine marsh habitat (over 22,200 acres in Texas and 153,000 acres in Louisiana) would reduce biological productivity. An upland confined placement area would convert 86 acres of wetlands. New work dredging would likely adversely affect, but not likely jeopardize the continued existence of, loggerhead, Kemp's ridley, and green sea turtles. Impacts to shoreline birds and their habitat could result from the placement of maintenance material on the Gulf shoreline. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1412 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0176D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110059, Volume I: Final Feasibility Report--743 pages and maps, Volume II: Final EIS--552 pages, Volumes III and IV: Appendices--1,400 pages, March 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Fish KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Navigation KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Salinity KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Shores KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Neches River KW - Texas KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 102 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130342?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SABINE-NECHES+WATERWAY+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SOUTHEAST+TEXAS+AND+SOUTHWEST+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=SABINE-NECHES+WATERWAY+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SOUTHEAST+TEXAS+AND+SOUTHWEST+LOUISIANA.&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 - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SACRAMENTO RIVER DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CONTRA COSTA, SACRAMENTO, SOLANO, AND YOLO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 1980 AND THE FINAL SUPPLEMENT OF MARCH 1986). [Part 26 of 30] T2 - SACRAMENTO RIVER DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CONTRA COSTA, SACRAMENTO, SOLANO, AND YOLO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 1980 AND THE FINAL SUPPLEMENT OF MARCH 1986). AN - 873129395; 14811-5_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening and selective widening of the Sacramento River Deep Water Ship Channel (SRDWSC), Contra Costa, Sacramento, Solano, and Yolo counties, California is proposed. The 43.4-mile-long SRDWSC is located in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and comprises a 17-mile section of the Sacramento River and the entire length of the 29-mile navigation channel. The upper 25 miles of the navigation channel is man-made, and the 8.4 miles of the navigation channel nearest the Port was previously dredged to 35 feet below mean lower low water MLLW. The Port of West Sacramento has historically served the agricultural industry, but has expanded its business to include additional commodities such as cement, biofuels, and wood pellets. Due to the current channel configuration, vessels laden with some cargos must light-load to safely navigate the SRDWSC. In addition, the existing widths of sections of the SRDWSC can make navigating to the Port difficult, particularly in inclement weather. This project was partially completed in 1990, but was suspended due to lack of funding. Two action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this supplemental draft EIS. The proposed project (Channel Deepening to -35 Feet MLLW and Selective Widening Alternative) would involve reinitiating the previously approved dredging from river miles 0.0 to 35.0 and completing the construction that was suspended. The total volume of dredged material is estimated to be 8.1 million cubic yards (cy) including a one-foot paid overdepth, and 10 million cy including a two-foot overdepth. Dredged material would be placed at 10 upland sites which would either permanently accommodate or temporarily stockpile the material for later beneficial reuse. Dredging would occur during project-specific work windows designed to reduce potential impact to sensitive aquatic species including salmonids, delta smelt, and longfin smelt. If six-month work windows are permitted, the proposed project could be constructed in four years. The -33 Feet MLLW Alternative would involve deepening the SRDWSC to a depth of 33 feet within the same dredging footprint as the proposed project and include maintenance dredging of the SRDWSC within the northernmost eight miles of the channel nearest the Port. The total dredged material volume for this alternative is anticipated to be 4 million cy with a one-foot overdepth or 5.2 million cy with a two-foot overdepth. Dredged material would be placed at seven sites which would either permanently accommodate or temporarily stockpile the material. Assuming construction occurs during six-month windows, the -33 Feet MLLW Alternative could be constructed in two to three years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A deeper and wider channel would improve economies of scale and overall navigation safety for commercial vessel traffic. With a 35-foot-deep channel or a 33-foot-deep channel, 100 or 114 vessels could carry the same amount of cargo as 143 vessels carry without the project. One million to three million cy of dredged material would be beneficially reused for construction or levee reinforcement under a confirmed arrangement with a disposal site owner. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increasing the channel's side slope would result in a 10 percent increase in the sedimentation rate in the SRDWSC. Implementation of either action alternative would result in loss of delta smelt critical habitat. Construction would require the relocation of at least two gas pipelines. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). JF - EPA number: 110055, 566 pages, March 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 26 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Channels KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Landfills KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - San Joaquin River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129395?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SACRAMENTO+RIVER+DEEP+WATER+SHIP+CHANNEL%2C+CONTRA+COSTA%2C+SACRAMENTO%2C+SOLANO%2C+AND+YOLO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+1980+AND+THE+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+OF+MARCH+1986%29.&rft.title=SACRAMENTO+RIVER+DEEP+WATER+SHIP+CHANNEL%2C+CONTRA+COSTA%2C+SACRAMENTO%2C+SOLANO%2C+AND+YOLO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+1980+AND+THE+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+OF+MARCH+1986%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, San Francisco, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEW ORLEANS TO VENICE (NOV), LOUISIANA, HURRICANE RISK REDUCTION PROJECT, INCORPORATION OF NON-FEDERAL LEVEES FROM OAKVILLE TO ST. JUDE, PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - NEW ORLEANS TO VENICE (NOV), LOUISIANA, HURRICANE RISK REDUCTION PROJECT, INCORPORATION OF NON-FEDERAL LEVEES FROM OAKVILLE TO ST. JUDE, PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 873129359; 14818-2_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement or modification of 32 miles of non-federal levee (NFL) system for incorporation into the New Orleans to Venice (NOV) federal project and the construction from ground level of two miles of earthen back levees in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana are proposed. The project area is located 15 miles south of New Orleans on the west bank of the Mississippi River between Oakville and St. Jude. Plaquemines Parish has long, narrow strips of protected land on both sides of the Mississippi River between New Orleans and the Gulf of Mexico. Hurricane and flood protection is currently provided by a system of federal levees along the river and federal and non-federal back levees which border the Gulf of Mexico's coastal wetlands and protect the land between the gulf and river from tropical storm surges. The distance between the gulf-side back levees and the river varies, but is usually less than one mile. The NFL, which is currently maintained by Plaquemines Parish, received extensive damage during Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and following these events was authorized for incorporation into the NOV federal project. Key issues identified during scoping include the level of risk reduction, levee alignment, project cost and duration, and impacts to wetlands. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in detail in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action and selected alternative (Alternative B), existing levee sections would be raised to a two percent design elevation, or approximately a 50-year level of risk reduction (LORR), and all five sections of the NFL would be incorporated into the federal hurricane and storm protection system by employing alignment alternatives which closely follow the existing levee alignment. The existing levee elevation would increase by three to four feet, National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NVGD), in the northern portion of the project area and by eight feet, NVGD, in the southern portion. Alternative B2, which is the locally preferred alternative, would be identical to the proposed action except that higher levee grades would be employed in Section 1. Under Alternative C, the levees in Sections 1 through 3 would be raised to a two percent LORR and incorporated into the federal system; and at the end of Section 3, the levee would be designed to turn 90 degrees to the east to tie in to the existing Mississippi River levee. The estimated fully funded cost of the proposed action, including mitigation, is $456 million. Levee replacement and modification would be conducted over a three to five year period subject to weather and funding. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide enhanced storm surge protection and protect evacuation routes, thus reducing risk to public safety and damage from catastrophic storm inundation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Use of proposed government-furnished borrow areas could impact a total of 908.6 acres of farmland. Direct impacts to 46 acres of bottomland hardwood habitat, 24.9 acres of swamp habitat, 10.4 acres of fresh marsh, 16.1 acres of brackish marsh, and 144.9 acres of wetland pasture would require mitigation. Construction activities would cause temporary disruptions to traffic and generate noise and dust. Temporarily increased sediment loads would result in minor increases in suspended solids and turbidity in local waterways. LEGAL MANDATES: Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-234). JF - EPA number: 110062, 669 pages, March 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Borrow Pits KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dikes KW - Dredging KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Protection KW - Hurricane Readiness Plans KW - Hurricanes KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi River KW - Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2006, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129359?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEW+ORLEANS+TO+VENICE+%28NOV%29%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+HURRICANE+RISK+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+INCORPORATION+OF+NON-FEDERAL+LEVEES+FROM+OAKVILLE+TO+ST.+JUDE%2C+PLAQUEMINES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=NEW+ORLEANS+TO+VENICE+%28NOV%29%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+HURRICANE+RISK+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+INCORPORATION+OF+NON-FEDERAL+LEVEES+FROM+OAKVILLE+TO+ST.+JUDE%2C+PLAQUEMINES+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; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SACRAMENTO RIVER DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CONTRA COSTA, SACRAMENTO, SOLANO, AND YOLO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 1980 AND THE FINAL SUPPLEMENT OF MARCH 1986). [Part 28 of 30] T2 - SACRAMENTO RIVER DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CONTRA COSTA, SACRAMENTO, SOLANO, AND YOLO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 1980 AND THE FINAL SUPPLEMENT OF MARCH 1986). AN - 873128262; 14811-5_0028 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening and selective widening of the Sacramento River Deep Water Ship Channel (SRDWSC), Contra Costa, Sacramento, Solano, and Yolo counties, California is proposed. The 43.4-mile-long SRDWSC is located in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and comprises a 17-mile section of the Sacramento River and the entire length of the 29-mile navigation channel. The upper 25 miles of the navigation channel is man-made, and the 8.4 miles of the navigation channel nearest the Port was previously dredged to 35 feet below mean lower low water MLLW. The Port of West Sacramento has historically served the agricultural industry, but has expanded its business to include additional commodities such as cement, biofuels, and wood pellets. Due to the current channel configuration, vessels laden with some cargos must light-load to safely navigate the SRDWSC. In addition, the existing widths of sections of the SRDWSC can make navigating to the Port difficult, particularly in inclement weather. This project was partially completed in 1990, but was suspended due to lack of funding. Two action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this supplemental draft EIS. The proposed project (Channel Deepening to -35 Feet MLLW and Selective Widening Alternative) would involve reinitiating the previously approved dredging from river miles 0.0 to 35.0 and completing the construction that was suspended. The total volume of dredged material is estimated to be 8.1 million cubic yards (cy) including a one-foot paid overdepth, and 10 million cy including a two-foot overdepth. Dredged material would be placed at 10 upland sites which would either permanently accommodate or temporarily stockpile the material for later beneficial reuse. Dredging would occur during project-specific work windows designed to reduce potential impact to sensitive aquatic species including salmonids, delta smelt, and longfin smelt. If six-month work windows are permitted, the proposed project could be constructed in four years. The -33 Feet MLLW Alternative would involve deepening the SRDWSC to a depth of 33 feet within the same dredging footprint as the proposed project and include maintenance dredging of the SRDWSC within the northernmost eight miles of the channel nearest the Port. The total dredged material volume for this alternative is anticipated to be 4 million cy with a one-foot overdepth or 5.2 million cy with a two-foot overdepth. Dredged material would be placed at seven sites which would either permanently accommodate or temporarily stockpile the material. Assuming construction occurs during six-month windows, the -33 Feet MLLW Alternative could be constructed in two to three years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A deeper and wider channel would improve economies of scale and overall navigation safety for commercial vessel traffic. With a 35-foot-deep channel or a 33-foot-deep channel, 100 or 114 vessels could carry the same amount of cargo as 143 vessels carry without the project. One million to three million cy of dredged material would be beneficially reused for construction or levee reinforcement under a confirmed arrangement with a disposal site owner. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increasing the channel's side slope would result in a 10 percent increase in the sedimentation rate in the SRDWSC. Implementation of either action alternative would result in loss of delta smelt critical habitat. Construction would require the relocation of at least two gas pipelines. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). JF - EPA number: 110055, 566 pages, March 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 28 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Channels KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Landfills KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - San Joaquin River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128262?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SACRAMENTO+RIVER+DEEP+WATER+SHIP+CHANNEL%2C+CONTRA+COSTA%2C+SACRAMENTO%2C+SOLANO%2C+AND+YOLO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+1980+AND+THE+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+OF+MARCH+1986%29.&rft.title=SACRAMENTO+RIVER+DEEP+WATER+SHIP+CHANNEL%2C+CONTRA+COSTA%2C+SACRAMENTO%2C+SOLANO%2C+AND+YOLO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+1980+AND+THE+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+OF+MARCH+1986%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, San Francisco, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SACRAMENTO RIVER DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CONTRA COSTA, SACRAMENTO, SOLANO, AND YOLO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 1980 AND THE FINAL SUPPLEMENT OF MARCH 1986). [Part 16 of 30] T2 - SACRAMENTO RIVER DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CONTRA COSTA, SACRAMENTO, SOLANO, AND YOLO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 1980 AND THE FINAL SUPPLEMENT OF MARCH 1986). AN - 873128254; 14811-5_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening and selective widening of the Sacramento River Deep Water Ship Channel (SRDWSC), Contra Costa, Sacramento, Solano, and Yolo counties, California is proposed. The 43.4-mile-long SRDWSC is located in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and comprises a 17-mile section of the Sacramento River and the entire length of the 29-mile navigation channel. The upper 25 miles of the navigation channel is man-made, and the 8.4 miles of the navigation channel nearest the Port was previously dredged to 35 feet below mean lower low water MLLW. The Port of West Sacramento has historically served the agricultural industry, but has expanded its business to include additional commodities such as cement, biofuels, and wood pellets. Due to the current channel configuration, vessels laden with some cargos must light-load to safely navigate the SRDWSC. In addition, the existing widths of sections of the SRDWSC can make navigating to the Port difficult, particularly in inclement weather. This project was partially completed in 1990, but was suspended due to lack of funding. Two action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this supplemental draft EIS. The proposed project (Channel Deepening to -35 Feet MLLW and Selective Widening Alternative) would involve reinitiating the previously approved dredging from river miles 0.0 to 35.0 and completing the construction that was suspended. The total volume of dredged material is estimated to be 8.1 million cubic yards (cy) including a one-foot paid overdepth, and 10 million cy including a two-foot overdepth. Dredged material would be placed at 10 upland sites which would either permanently accommodate or temporarily stockpile the material for later beneficial reuse. Dredging would occur during project-specific work windows designed to reduce potential impact to sensitive aquatic species including salmonids, delta smelt, and longfin smelt. If six-month work windows are permitted, the proposed project could be constructed in four years. The -33 Feet MLLW Alternative would involve deepening the SRDWSC to a depth of 33 feet within the same dredging footprint as the proposed project and include maintenance dredging of the SRDWSC within the northernmost eight miles of the channel nearest the Port. The total dredged material volume for this alternative is anticipated to be 4 million cy with a one-foot overdepth or 5.2 million cy with a two-foot overdepth. Dredged material would be placed at seven sites which would either permanently accommodate or temporarily stockpile the material. Assuming construction occurs during six-month windows, the -33 Feet MLLW Alternative could be constructed in two to three years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A deeper and wider channel would improve economies of scale and overall navigation safety for commercial vessel traffic. With a 35-foot-deep channel or a 33-foot-deep channel, 100 or 114 vessels could carry the same amount of cargo as 143 vessels carry without the project. One million to three million cy of dredged material would be beneficially reused for construction or levee reinforcement under a confirmed arrangement with a disposal site owner. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increasing the channel's side slope would result in a 10 percent increase in the sedimentation rate in the SRDWSC. Implementation of either action alternative would result in loss of delta smelt critical habitat. Construction would require the relocation of at least two gas pipelines. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). JF - EPA number: 110055, 566 pages, March 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 16 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Channels KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Landfills KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - San Joaquin River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128254?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SACRAMENTO+RIVER+DEEP+WATER+SHIP+CHANNEL%2C+CONTRA+COSTA%2C+SACRAMENTO%2C+SOLANO%2C+AND+YOLO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+1980+AND+THE+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+OF+MARCH+1986%29.&rft.title=SACRAMENTO+RIVER+DEEP+WATER+SHIP+CHANNEL%2C+CONTRA+COSTA%2C+SACRAMENTO%2C+SOLANO%2C+AND+YOLO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+1980+AND+THE+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+OF+MARCH+1986%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, San Francisco, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SACRAMENTO RIVER DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CONTRA COSTA, SACRAMENTO, SOLANO, AND YOLO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 1980 AND THE FINAL SUPPLEMENT OF MARCH 1986). [Part 15 of 30] T2 - SACRAMENTO RIVER DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CONTRA COSTA, SACRAMENTO, SOLANO, AND YOLO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 1980 AND THE FINAL SUPPLEMENT OF MARCH 1986). AN - 873128241; 14811-5_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening and selective widening of the Sacramento River Deep Water Ship Channel (SRDWSC), Contra Costa, Sacramento, Solano, and Yolo counties, California is proposed. The 43.4-mile-long SRDWSC is located in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and comprises a 17-mile section of the Sacramento River and the entire length of the 29-mile navigation channel. The upper 25 miles of the navigation channel is man-made, and the 8.4 miles of the navigation channel nearest the Port was previously dredged to 35 feet below mean lower low water MLLW. The Port of West Sacramento has historically served the agricultural industry, but has expanded its business to include additional commodities such as cement, biofuels, and wood pellets. Due to the current channel configuration, vessels laden with some cargos must light-load to safely navigate the SRDWSC. In addition, the existing widths of sections of the SRDWSC can make navigating to the Port difficult, particularly in inclement weather. This project was partially completed in 1990, but was suspended due to lack of funding. Two action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this supplemental draft EIS. The proposed project (Channel Deepening to -35 Feet MLLW and Selective Widening Alternative) would involve reinitiating the previously approved dredging from river miles 0.0 to 35.0 and completing the construction that was suspended. The total volume of dredged material is estimated to be 8.1 million cubic yards (cy) including a one-foot paid overdepth, and 10 million cy including a two-foot overdepth. Dredged material would be placed at 10 upland sites which would either permanently accommodate or temporarily stockpile the material for later beneficial reuse. Dredging would occur during project-specific work windows designed to reduce potential impact to sensitive aquatic species including salmonids, delta smelt, and longfin smelt. If six-month work windows are permitted, the proposed project could be constructed in four years. The -33 Feet MLLW Alternative would involve deepening the SRDWSC to a depth of 33 feet within the same dredging footprint as the proposed project and include maintenance dredging of the SRDWSC within the northernmost eight miles of the channel nearest the Port. The total dredged material volume for this alternative is anticipated to be 4 million cy with a one-foot overdepth or 5.2 million cy with a two-foot overdepth. Dredged material would be placed at seven sites which would either permanently accommodate or temporarily stockpile the material. Assuming construction occurs during six-month windows, the -33 Feet MLLW Alternative could be constructed in two to three years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A deeper and wider channel would improve economies of scale and overall navigation safety for commercial vessel traffic. With a 35-foot-deep channel or a 33-foot-deep channel, 100 or 114 vessels could carry the same amount of cargo as 143 vessels carry without the project. One million to three million cy of dredged material would be beneficially reused for construction or levee reinforcement under a confirmed arrangement with a disposal site owner. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increasing the channel's side slope would result in a 10 percent increase in the sedimentation rate in the SRDWSC. Implementation of either action alternative would result in loss of delta smelt critical habitat. Construction would require the relocation of at least two gas pipelines. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). JF - EPA number: 110055, 566 pages, March 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Channels KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Landfills KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - San Joaquin River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128241?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SACRAMENTO+RIVER+DEEP+WATER+SHIP+CHANNEL%2C+CONTRA+COSTA%2C+SACRAMENTO%2C+SOLANO%2C+AND+YOLO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+1980+AND+THE+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+OF+MARCH+1986%29.&rft.title=SACRAMENTO+RIVER+DEEP+WATER+SHIP+CHANNEL%2C+CONTRA+COSTA%2C+SACRAMENTO%2C+SOLANO%2C+AND+YOLO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+1980+AND+THE+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+OF+MARCH+1986%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, San Francisco, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SACRAMENTO RIVER DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CONTRA COSTA, SACRAMENTO, SOLANO, AND YOLO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 1980 AND THE FINAL SUPPLEMENT OF MARCH 1986). [Part 1 of 30] T2 - SACRAMENTO RIVER DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CONTRA COSTA, SACRAMENTO, SOLANO, AND YOLO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 1980 AND THE FINAL SUPPLEMENT OF MARCH 1986). AN - 873128227; 14811-5_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening and selective widening of the Sacramento River Deep Water Ship Channel (SRDWSC), Contra Costa, Sacramento, Solano, and Yolo counties, California is proposed. The 43.4-mile-long SRDWSC is located in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and comprises a 17-mile section of the Sacramento River and the entire length of the 29-mile navigation channel. The upper 25 miles of the navigation channel is man-made, and the 8.4 miles of the navigation channel nearest the Port was previously dredged to 35 feet below mean lower low water MLLW. The Port of West Sacramento has historically served the agricultural industry, but has expanded its business to include additional commodities such as cement, biofuels, and wood pellets. Due to the current channel configuration, vessels laden with some cargos must light-load to safely navigate the SRDWSC. In addition, the existing widths of sections of the SRDWSC can make navigating to the Port difficult, particularly in inclement weather. This project was partially completed in 1990, but was suspended due to lack of funding. Two action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this supplemental draft EIS. The proposed project (Channel Deepening to -35 Feet MLLW and Selective Widening Alternative) would involve reinitiating the previously approved dredging from river miles 0.0 to 35.0 and completing the construction that was suspended. The total volume of dredged material is estimated to be 8.1 million cubic yards (cy) including a one-foot paid overdepth, and 10 million cy including a two-foot overdepth. Dredged material would be placed at 10 upland sites which would either permanently accommodate or temporarily stockpile the material for later beneficial reuse. Dredging would occur during project-specific work windows designed to reduce potential impact to sensitive aquatic species including salmonids, delta smelt, and longfin smelt. If six-month work windows are permitted, the proposed project could be constructed in four years. The -33 Feet MLLW Alternative would involve deepening the SRDWSC to a depth of 33 feet within the same dredging footprint as the proposed project and include maintenance dredging of the SRDWSC within the northernmost eight miles of the channel nearest the Port. The total dredged material volume for this alternative is anticipated to be 4 million cy with a one-foot overdepth or 5.2 million cy with a two-foot overdepth. Dredged material would be placed at seven sites which would either permanently accommodate or temporarily stockpile the material. Assuming construction occurs during six-month windows, the -33 Feet MLLW Alternative could be constructed in two to three years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A deeper and wider channel would improve economies of scale and overall navigation safety for commercial vessel traffic. With a 35-foot-deep channel or a 33-foot-deep channel, 100 or 114 vessels could carry the same amount of cargo as 143 vessels carry without the project. One million to three million cy of dredged material would be beneficially reused for construction or levee reinforcement under a confirmed arrangement with a disposal site owner. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increasing the channel's side slope would result in a 10 percent increase in the sedimentation rate in the SRDWSC. Implementation of either action alternative would result in loss of delta smelt critical habitat. Construction would require the relocation of at least two gas pipelines. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). JF - EPA number: 110055, 566 pages, March 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Channels KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Landfills KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - San Joaquin River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128227?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SACRAMENTO+RIVER+DEEP+WATER+SHIP+CHANNEL%2C+CONTRA+COSTA%2C+SACRAMENTO%2C+SOLANO%2C+AND+YOLO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+1980+AND+THE+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+OF+MARCH+1986%29.&rft.title=SACRAMENTO+RIVER+DEEP+WATER+SHIP+CHANNEL%2C+CONTRA+COSTA%2C+SACRAMENTO%2C+SOLANO%2C+AND+YOLO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+1980+AND+THE+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+OF+MARCH+1986%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, San Francisco, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT ELECTRIC GENERATING STATION UNITS 3 AND 4, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSES, MATAGORDA COUNTY, TEXAS. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT ELECTRIC GENERATING STATION UNITS 3 AND 4, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSES, MATAGORDA COUNTY, TEXAS. AN - 873128204; 14812-6_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of combined operating licenses for the construction and operation of two new nuclear power reactor units at the South Texas Project Electric Generating Station (STP) site in Matagorda County, Texas is proposed. STP Nuclear Operating Company submitted an application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on September 20, 2007 for the proposed STP Units 3 and 4 which would be located 2,000 feet northwest of the existing STP Units 1 and 2. The 12,220-acre STP site is 10 miles north of Matagorda Bay, 70 miles south-southwest of Houston, and 12 miles south-southwest of Bay City along the west bank of the Colorado River. Most of the site is within the Texas coastal management zone. The existing main cooling reservoir (MCR) occupies 7,000 acres of the STP site and 1,750 acres are currently occupied by Units 1 and 2 and associated facilities. The remainder of the site is undeveloped land or is used for agriculture and cattle grazing. Four transmission service providers currently serve the site and the existing 345-kilovolt (kV) switchyard currently has nine 345-kV transmission lines that connect it to the utility grid. Under the applicant's proposal, two electricity generating systems would be built using the U.S. advanced boiling water reactor design. These systems are rated at 3,926 megawatts (MW) thermal, with a gross electrical output of 1,356 MW electrical and a net output of 1,300 MW electrical. Reject heat from the unit to the environment, principally the atmosphere, is 2,626 MW thermal. Heat created in the reactor core is transferred to high-pressure and low-pressure turbines, which turn a generator to create electricity. For the units under consideration, cooling water would be withdrawn from the north shore of the MCR through an intake structure, circulate through the main condensers for proposed Units 3 and 4, and then return to the MCR through a shared discharge structure. Water lost from the MCR through ground seepage, evaporation, and release to the Colorado River would be replaced with water withdrawn from the Colorado River at the reservoir makeup pumping facility (RMPF) located to the east of the proposed units. Water would be released from the MCR to the Colorado River through the discharge structure located on the west bank two miles downstream of the RMPF. All of these structures currently exist to support the operation of Units 1 and 2. The proposed new units would have a shared exclusion area boundary and a shared plant access road with the existing units. The vent stack for proposed Unit 3 would be the tallest new structure at 249 feet above grade, which is of similar elevation to the highest point of the existing units. Units 3 and 4 would rely on the MCR as the main condenser heat sink just as Units 1 and 2 do currently. In the event of an emergency, the proposed new units would not rely on the 46-acre essential cooling pond as an ultimate heat sink, but would rely on mechanical draft cooling towers. The two Unit 3 and 4 cooling towers would also be available as helper towers to provide for heat rejection to the atmosphere during normal operations. Blowdown from the cooling towers would be returned to the MCR. To support four-unit operation, the RMPF would be refurbished and modified within its existing footprint without any disturbances within the Colorado River. The RMPF would withdraw water through a 406-foot-long intake structure located parallel to the shoreline. The applicant has requested authorization to expand an existing barge slip on the Colorado River and to culvert and fill waters of the United States for the purpose of constructing a heavy haul road on the site. The power transmission system for the proposed Units 3 and 4 would not require new transmission lines or corridors, but a portion of the existing system would be upgraded. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this final EIS addresses energy source alternatives, alternative sites, system design alternatives, and onsite alternatives to reduce impacts to aquatic resources. The NRC staffs recommendation is that the combined operating licenses be issued as proposed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide additional baseload electrical generation capacity for use in the owner's current markets within the Electric Reliability Council of Texas region and/or for potential sale on the wholesale market. An additional 2,400 jobs would be created. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would create stormwater runoff, displace wildlife habitat, and have noticeable impacts to traffic. Operational impacts would include increased risks of bird and bat collisions, wildlife avoidance due to noise; increased surface water use from the Colorado River; increased sediment load in stormwater; and increased frequency of discharge of MCR waters to the Colorado River. MCR discharge could cause physical scouring with adverse effects to aquatic species and habitat and the thermal plume could encourage growth of etiological agents. 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). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0027D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110056, Final EIS--943 pages, Appendices--409 pages, March 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: NUREG-1937 KW - Boiling Water Reactors KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cooling Systems KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Nuclear Reactors KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Regulations KW - Rivers KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado River KW - Texas 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/873128204?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=Andrew&rft.date=2012-01-01&rft.volume=53&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=58&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Agricultural+Education&rft.issn=10420541&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 - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SACRAMENTO RIVER DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CONTRA COSTA, SACRAMENTO, SOLANO, AND YOLO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 1980 AND THE FINAL SUPPLEMENT OF MARCH 1986). [Part 27 of 30] T2 - SACRAMENTO RIVER DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CONTRA COSTA, SACRAMENTO, SOLANO, AND YOLO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 1980 AND THE FINAL SUPPLEMENT OF MARCH 1986). AN - 873127996; 14811-5_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening and selective widening of the Sacramento River Deep Water Ship Channel (SRDWSC), Contra Costa, Sacramento, Solano, and Yolo counties, California is proposed. The 43.4-mile-long SRDWSC is located in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and comprises a 17-mile section of the Sacramento River and the entire length of the 29-mile navigation channel. The upper 25 miles of the navigation channel is man-made, and the 8.4 miles of the navigation channel nearest the Port was previously dredged to 35 feet below mean lower low water MLLW. The Port of West Sacramento has historically served the agricultural industry, but has expanded its business to include additional commodities such as cement, biofuels, and wood pellets. Due to the current channel configuration, vessels laden with some cargos must light-load to safely navigate the SRDWSC. In addition, the existing widths of sections of the SRDWSC can make navigating to the Port difficult, particularly in inclement weather. This project was partially completed in 1990, but was suspended due to lack of funding. Two action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this supplemental draft EIS. The proposed project (Channel Deepening to -35 Feet MLLW and Selective Widening Alternative) would involve reinitiating the previously approved dredging from river miles 0.0 to 35.0 and completing the construction that was suspended. The total volume of dredged material is estimated to be 8.1 million cubic yards (cy) including a one-foot paid overdepth, and 10 million cy including a two-foot overdepth. Dredged material would be placed at 10 upland sites which would either permanently accommodate or temporarily stockpile the material for later beneficial reuse. Dredging would occur during project-specific work windows designed to reduce potential impact to sensitive aquatic species including salmonids, delta smelt, and longfin smelt. If six-month work windows are permitted, the proposed project could be constructed in four years. The -33 Feet MLLW Alternative would involve deepening the SRDWSC to a depth of 33 feet within the same dredging footprint as the proposed project and include maintenance dredging of the SRDWSC within the northernmost eight miles of the channel nearest the Port. The total dredged material volume for this alternative is anticipated to be 4 million cy with a one-foot overdepth or 5.2 million cy with a two-foot overdepth. Dredged material would be placed at seven sites which would either permanently accommodate or temporarily stockpile the material. Assuming construction occurs during six-month windows, the -33 Feet MLLW Alternative could be constructed in two to three years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A deeper and wider channel would improve economies of scale and overall navigation safety for commercial vessel traffic. With a 35-foot-deep channel or a 33-foot-deep channel, 100 or 114 vessels could carry the same amount of cargo as 143 vessels carry without the project. One million to three million cy of dredged material would be beneficially reused for construction or levee reinforcement under a confirmed arrangement with a disposal site owner. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increasing the channel's side slope would result in a 10 percent increase in the sedimentation rate in the SRDWSC. Implementation of either action alternative would result in loss of delta smelt critical habitat. Construction would require the relocation of at least two gas pipelines. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). JF - EPA number: 110055, 566 pages, March 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 27 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Channels KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Landfills KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - San Joaquin River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127996?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SACRAMENTO+RIVER+DEEP+WATER+SHIP+CHANNEL%2C+CONTRA+COSTA%2C+SACRAMENTO%2C+SOLANO%2C+AND+YOLO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+1980+AND+THE+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+OF+MARCH+1986%29.&rft.title=SACRAMENTO+RIVER+DEEP+WATER+SHIP+CHANNEL%2C+CONTRA+COSTA%2C+SACRAMENTO%2C+SOLANO%2C+AND+YOLO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+1980+AND+THE+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+OF+MARCH+1986%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, San Francisco, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SACRAMENTO RIVER DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CONTRA COSTA, SACRAMENTO, SOLANO, AND YOLO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 1980 AND THE FINAL SUPPLEMENT OF MARCH 1986). [Part 14 of 30] T2 - SACRAMENTO RIVER DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CONTRA COSTA, SACRAMENTO, SOLANO, AND YOLO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 1980 AND THE FINAL SUPPLEMENT OF MARCH 1986). AN - 873127991; 14811-5_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening and selective widening of the Sacramento River Deep Water Ship Channel (SRDWSC), Contra Costa, Sacramento, Solano, and Yolo counties, California is proposed. The 43.4-mile-long SRDWSC is located in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and comprises a 17-mile section of the Sacramento River and the entire length of the 29-mile navigation channel. The upper 25 miles of the navigation channel is man-made, and the 8.4 miles of the navigation channel nearest the Port was previously dredged to 35 feet below mean lower low water MLLW. The Port of West Sacramento has historically served the agricultural industry, but has expanded its business to include additional commodities such as cement, biofuels, and wood pellets. Due to the current channel configuration, vessels laden with some cargos must light-load to safely navigate the SRDWSC. In addition, the existing widths of sections of the SRDWSC can make navigating to the Port difficult, particularly in inclement weather. This project was partially completed in 1990, but was suspended due to lack of funding. Two action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this supplemental draft EIS. The proposed project (Channel Deepening to -35 Feet MLLW and Selective Widening Alternative) would involve reinitiating the previously approved dredging from river miles 0.0 to 35.0 and completing the construction that was suspended. The total volume of dredged material is estimated to be 8.1 million cubic yards (cy) including a one-foot paid overdepth, and 10 million cy including a two-foot overdepth. Dredged material would be placed at 10 upland sites which would either permanently accommodate or temporarily stockpile the material for later beneficial reuse. Dredging would occur during project-specific work windows designed to reduce potential impact to sensitive aquatic species including salmonids, delta smelt, and longfin smelt. If six-month work windows are permitted, the proposed project could be constructed in four years. The -33 Feet MLLW Alternative would involve deepening the SRDWSC to a depth of 33 feet within the same dredging footprint as the proposed project and include maintenance dredging of the SRDWSC within the northernmost eight miles of the channel nearest the Port. The total dredged material volume for this alternative is anticipated to be 4 million cy with a one-foot overdepth or 5.2 million cy with a two-foot overdepth. Dredged material would be placed at seven sites which would either permanently accommodate or temporarily stockpile the material. Assuming construction occurs during six-month windows, the -33 Feet MLLW Alternative could be constructed in two to three years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A deeper and wider channel would improve economies of scale and overall navigation safety for commercial vessel traffic. With a 35-foot-deep channel or a 33-foot-deep channel, 100 or 114 vessels could carry the same amount of cargo as 143 vessels carry without the project. One million to three million cy of dredged material would be beneficially reused for construction or levee reinforcement under a confirmed arrangement with a disposal site owner. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increasing the channel's side slope would result in a 10 percent increase in the sedimentation rate in the SRDWSC. Implementation of either action alternative would result in loss of delta smelt critical habitat. Construction would require the relocation of at least two gas pipelines. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). JF - EPA number: 110055, 566 pages, March 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Channels KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Landfills KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - San Joaquin River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127991?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SACRAMENTO+RIVER+DEEP+WATER+SHIP+CHANNEL%2C+CONTRA+COSTA%2C+SACRAMENTO%2C+SOLANO%2C+AND+YOLO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+1980+AND+THE+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+OF+MARCH+1986%29.&rft.title=SACRAMENTO+RIVER+DEEP+WATER+SHIP+CHANNEL%2C+CONTRA+COSTA%2C+SACRAMENTO%2C+SOLANO%2C+AND+YOLO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+1980+AND+THE+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+OF+MARCH+1986%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, San Francisco, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SACRAMENTO RIVER DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CONTRA COSTA, SACRAMENTO, SOLANO, AND YOLO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 1980 AND THE FINAL SUPPLEMENT OF MARCH 1986). [Part 13 of 30] T2 - SACRAMENTO RIVER DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CONTRA COSTA, SACRAMENTO, SOLANO, AND YOLO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 1980 AND THE FINAL SUPPLEMENT OF MARCH 1986). AN - 873127985; 14811-5_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening and selective widening of the Sacramento River Deep Water Ship Channel (SRDWSC), Contra Costa, Sacramento, Solano, and Yolo counties, California is proposed. The 43.4-mile-long SRDWSC is located in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and comprises a 17-mile section of the Sacramento River and the entire length of the 29-mile navigation channel. The upper 25 miles of the navigation channel is man-made, and the 8.4 miles of the navigation channel nearest the Port was previously dredged to 35 feet below mean lower low water MLLW. The Port of West Sacramento has historically served the agricultural industry, but has expanded its business to include additional commodities such as cement, biofuels, and wood pellets. Due to the current channel configuration, vessels laden with some cargos must light-load to safely navigate the SRDWSC. In addition, the existing widths of sections of the SRDWSC can make navigating to the Port difficult, particularly in inclement weather. This project was partially completed in 1990, but was suspended due to lack of funding. Two action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this supplemental draft EIS. The proposed project (Channel Deepening to -35 Feet MLLW and Selective Widening Alternative) would involve reinitiating the previously approved dredging from river miles 0.0 to 35.0 and completing the construction that was suspended. The total volume of dredged material is estimated to be 8.1 million cubic yards (cy) including a one-foot paid overdepth, and 10 million cy including a two-foot overdepth. Dredged material would be placed at 10 upland sites which would either permanently accommodate or temporarily stockpile the material for later beneficial reuse. Dredging would occur during project-specific work windows designed to reduce potential impact to sensitive aquatic species including salmonids, delta smelt, and longfin smelt. If six-month work windows are permitted, the proposed project could be constructed in four years. The -33 Feet MLLW Alternative would involve deepening the SRDWSC to a depth of 33 feet within the same dredging footprint as the proposed project and include maintenance dredging of the SRDWSC within the northernmost eight miles of the channel nearest the Port. The total dredged material volume for this alternative is anticipated to be 4 million cy with a one-foot overdepth or 5.2 million cy with a two-foot overdepth. Dredged material would be placed at seven sites which would either permanently accommodate or temporarily stockpile the material. Assuming construction occurs during six-month windows, the -33 Feet MLLW Alternative could be constructed in two to three years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A deeper and wider channel would improve economies of scale and overall navigation safety for commercial vessel traffic. With a 35-foot-deep channel or a 33-foot-deep channel, 100 or 114 vessels could carry the same amount of cargo as 143 vessels carry without the project. One million to three million cy of dredged material would be beneficially reused for construction or levee reinforcement under a confirmed arrangement with a disposal site owner. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increasing the channel's side slope would result in a 10 percent increase in the sedimentation rate in the SRDWSC. Implementation of either action alternative would result in loss of delta smelt critical habitat. Construction would require the relocation of at least two gas pipelines. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). JF - EPA number: 110055, 566 pages, March 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Channels KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Landfills KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - San Joaquin River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127985?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SACRAMENTO+RIVER+DEEP+WATER+SHIP+CHANNEL%2C+CONTRA+COSTA%2C+SACRAMENTO%2C+SOLANO%2C+AND+YOLO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+1980+AND+THE+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+OF+MARCH+1986%29.&rft.title=SACRAMENTO+RIVER+DEEP+WATER+SHIP+CHANNEL%2C+CONTRA+COSTA%2C+SACRAMENTO%2C+SOLANO%2C+AND+YOLO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+1980+AND+THE+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+OF+MARCH+1986%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, San Francisco, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SACRAMENTO RIVER DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CONTRA COSTA, SACRAMENTO, SOLANO, AND YOLO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 1980 AND THE FINAL SUPPLEMENT OF MARCH 1986). [Part 12 of 30] T2 - SACRAMENTO RIVER DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CONTRA COSTA, SACRAMENTO, SOLANO, AND YOLO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 1980 AND THE FINAL SUPPLEMENT OF MARCH 1986). AN - 873127980; 14811-5_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening and selective widening of the Sacramento River Deep Water Ship Channel (SRDWSC), Contra Costa, Sacramento, Solano, and Yolo counties, California is proposed. The 43.4-mile-long SRDWSC is located in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and comprises a 17-mile section of the Sacramento River and the entire length of the 29-mile navigation channel. The upper 25 miles of the navigation channel is man-made, and the 8.4 miles of the navigation channel nearest the Port was previously dredged to 35 feet below mean lower low water MLLW. The Port of West Sacramento has historically served the agricultural industry, but has expanded its business to include additional commodities such as cement, biofuels, and wood pellets. Due to the current channel configuration, vessels laden with some cargos must light-load to safely navigate the SRDWSC. In addition, the existing widths of sections of the SRDWSC can make navigating to the Port difficult, particularly in inclement weather. This project was partially completed in 1990, but was suspended due to lack of funding. Two action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this supplemental draft EIS. The proposed project (Channel Deepening to -35 Feet MLLW and Selective Widening Alternative) would involve reinitiating the previously approved dredging from river miles 0.0 to 35.0 and completing the construction that was suspended. The total volume of dredged material is estimated to be 8.1 million cubic yards (cy) including a one-foot paid overdepth, and 10 million cy including a two-foot overdepth. Dredged material would be placed at 10 upland sites which would either permanently accommodate or temporarily stockpile the material for later beneficial reuse. Dredging would occur during project-specific work windows designed to reduce potential impact to sensitive aquatic species including salmonids, delta smelt, and longfin smelt. If six-month work windows are permitted, the proposed project could be constructed in four years. The -33 Feet MLLW Alternative would involve deepening the SRDWSC to a depth of 33 feet within the same dredging footprint as the proposed project and include maintenance dredging of the SRDWSC within the northernmost eight miles of the channel nearest the Port. The total dredged material volume for this alternative is anticipated to be 4 million cy with a one-foot overdepth or 5.2 million cy with a two-foot overdepth. Dredged material would be placed at seven sites which would either permanently accommodate or temporarily stockpile the material. Assuming construction occurs during six-month windows, the -33 Feet MLLW Alternative could be constructed in two to three years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A deeper and wider channel would improve economies of scale and overall navigation safety for commercial vessel traffic. With a 35-foot-deep channel or a 33-foot-deep channel, 100 or 114 vessels could carry the same amount of cargo as 143 vessels carry without the project. One million to three million cy of dredged material would be beneficially reused for construction or levee reinforcement under a confirmed arrangement with a disposal site owner. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increasing the channel's side slope would result in a 10 percent increase in the sedimentation rate in the SRDWSC. Implementation of either action alternative would result in loss of delta smelt critical habitat. Construction would require the relocation of at least two gas pipelines. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). JF - EPA number: 110055, 566 pages, March 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Channels KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Landfills KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - San Joaquin River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127980?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-04-01&rft.volume=32&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=269&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Early+Adolescence&rft.issn=02724316&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, San Francisco, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SACRAMENTO RIVER DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CONTRA COSTA, SACRAMENTO, SOLANO, AND YOLO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 1980 AND THE FINAL SUPPLEMENT OF MARCH 1986). [Part 11 of 30] T2 - SACRAMENTO RIVER DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CONTRA COSTA, SACRAMENTO, SOLANO, AND YOLO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 1980 AND THE FINAL SUPPLEMENT OF MARCH 1986). AN - 873127976; 14811-5_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening and selective widening of the Sacramento River Deep Water Ship Channel (SRDWSC), Contra Costa, Sacramento, Solano, and Yolo counties, California is proposed. The 43.4-mile-long SRDWSC is located in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and comprises a 17-mile section of the Sacramento River and the entire length of the 29-mile navigation channel. The upper 25 miles of the navigation channel is man-made, and the 8.4 miles of the navigation channel nearest the Port was previously dredged to 35 feet below mean lower low water MLLW. The Port of West Sacramento has historically served the agricultural industry, but has expanded its business to include additional commodities such as cement, biofuels, and wood pellets. Due to the current channel configuration, vessels laden with some cargos must light-load to safely navigate the SRDWSC. In addition, the existing widths of sections of the SRDWSC can make navigating to the Port difficult, particularly in inclement weather. This project was partially completed in 1990, but was suspended due to lack of funding. Two action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this supplemental draft EIS. The proposed project (Channel Deepening to -35 Feet MLLW and Selective Widening Alternative) would involve reinitiating the previously approved dredging from river miles 0.0 to 35.0 and completing the construction that was suspended. The total volume of dredged material is estimated to be 8.1 million cubic yards (cy) including a one-foot paid overdepth, and 10 million cy including a two-foot overdepth. Dredged material would be placed at 10 upland sites which would either permanently accommodate or temporarily stockpile the material for later beneficial reuse. Dredging would occur during project-specific work windows designed to reduce potential impact to sensitive aquatic species including salmonids, delta smelt, and longfin smelt. If six-month work windows are permitted, the proposed project could be constructed in four years. The -33 Feet MLLW Alternative would involve deepening the SRDWSC to a depth of 33 feet within the same dredging footprint as the proposed project and include maintenance dredging of the SRDWSC within the northernmost eight miles of the channel nearest the Port. The total dredged material volume for this alternative is anticipated to be 4 million cy with a one-foot overdepth or 5.2 million cy with a two-foot overdepth. Dredged material would be placed at seven sites which would either permanently accommodate or temporarily stockpile the material. Assuming construction occurs during six-month windows, the -33 Feet MLLW Alternative could be constructed in two to three years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A deeper and wider channel would improve economies of scale and overall navigation safety for commercial vessel traffic. With a 35-foot-deep channel or a 33-foot-deep channel, 100 or 114 vessels could carry the same amount of cargo as 143 vessels carry without the project. One million to three million cy of dredged material would be beneficially reused for construction or levee reinforcement under a confirmed arrangement with a disposal site owner. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increasing the channel's side slope would result in a 10 percent increase in the sedimentation rate in the SRDWSC. Implementation of either action alternative would result in loss of delta smelt critical habitat. Construction would require the relocation of at least two gas pipelines. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). JF - EPA number: 110055, 566 pages, March 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Channels KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Landfills KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - San Joaquin River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127976?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SACRAMENTO+RIVER+DEEP+WATER+SHIP+CHANNEL%2C+CONTRA+COSTA%2C+SACRAMENTO%2C+SOLANO%2C+AND+YOLO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+1980+AND+THE+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+OF+MARCH+1986%29.&rft.title=SACRAMENTO+RIVER+DEEP+WATER+SHIP+CHANNEL%2C+CONTRA+COSTA%2C+SACRAMENTO%2C+SOLANO%2C+AND+YOLO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+1980+AND+THE+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+OF+MARCH+1986%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, San Francisco, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SABINE-NECHES WATERWAY CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, SOUTHEAST TEXAS AND SOUTHWEST LOUISIANA. [Part 1 of 5] T2 - SABINE-NECHES WATERWAY CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, SOUTHEAST TEXAS AND SOUTHWEST LOUISIANA. AN - 873127714; 14815-9_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the Sabine-Neches Waterway (SNWW), including modifications of the channels serving the ports of Beaumont, Port Arthur, and Orange, Texas, are proposed. The SNWW is located on the upper Texas Gulf Coast in Jefferson and Orange counties, Texas and Cameron and Calcasieu parishes, Louisiana. The 64-mile-long channel begins offshore, follows the west side of Sabine Lake and terminates just upstream of the Beaumont turning basin on the Neches River. Sixty percent of the SNWW tonnage total is comprised of deep draft movements, the vast majority of which are shipments of crude petroleum or petroleum/chemical products in and out of 20 waterfront facilities in Port Arthur and 27 facilities in Beaumont. SNWW's crude petroleum imports represent four percent of the US total. The existing SNWW navigation channel is congested and its 40-foot project depth was designed for smaller vessels than are being used today. A No Action Alternative and six structural alternatives are evaluated in detail in this final EIS. Alternatives A through F would deepen the SNWW to 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, or 50 feet, respectively. The preferred alternative (Alternative D) would: 1) deepen the SNWW to Beaumont to 48 feet; 2) extend the Sabine Bank Channel an additional 13.2 miles into the Gulf of Mexico; 3) taper the Sabine Bank Channel from 800 feet wide to 700 feet wide through the end of the Sabine Bank Channel extension; 4) deepen and widen Taylor Bayou channels and turning basins; and 5) construct three new anchorage/turning basins on the Neches River. Dredged material produced by construction and during maintenance dredging over the 50-year period of analysis would be managed in accordance with a plan that includes 16 existing upland placement areas, four existing and four new ocean dredged material disposal sites (ODMDSs), and beneficial use features. Construction and maintenance dredging are projected to yield 98 million cubic yards and 650 million cubic yards of material, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the channel improvement project would improve the transportation efficiency of the SNWW's deep-draft navigation system and support industry at critical ports. Dredged material would be used beneficially to restore wetlands within the study area's 480 square miles of sensitive coastal habitats. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging activities, new ODMDSs, and marsh restoration would result in temporary impacts to water quality and benthic organisms and habitat. A small increase in salinity over 35,600 acres of fresh marsh and 804 acres of swamps in Texas and Louisiana and over large areas of estuarine marsh habitat (over 22,200 acres in Texas and 153,000 acres in Louisiana) would reduce biological productivity. An upland confined placement area would convert 86 acres of wetlands. New work dredging would likely adversely affect, but not likely jeopardize the continued existence of, loggerhead, Kemp's ridley, and green sea turtles. Impacts to shoreline birds and their habitat could result from the placement of maintenance material on the Gulf shoreline. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1412 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0176D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110059, Volume I: Final Feasibility Report--743 pages and maps, Volume II: Final EIS--552 pages, Volumes III and IV: Appendices--1,400 pages, March 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Fish KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Navigation KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Salinity KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Shores KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Neches River KW - Texas KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 102 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127714?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SABINE-NECHES+WATERWAY+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SOUTHEAST+TEXAS+AND+SOUTHWEST+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=SABINE-NECHES+WATERWAY+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SOUTHEAST+TEXAS+AND+SOUTHWEST+LOUISIANA.&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 - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SACRAMENTO RIVER DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CONTRA COSTA, SACRAMENTO, SOLANO, AND YOLO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 1980 AND THE FINAL SUPPLEMENT OF MARCH 1986). [Part 29 of 30] T2 - SACRAMENTO RIVER DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CONTRA COSTA, SACRAMENTO, SOLANO, AND YOLO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 1980 AND THE FINAL SUPPLEMENT OF MARCH 1986). AN - 873127576; 14811-5_0029 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening and selective widening of the Sacramento River Deep Water Ship Channel (SRDWSC), Contra Costa, Sacramento, Solano, and Yolo counties, California is proposed. The 43.4-mile-long SRDWSC is located in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and comprises a 17-mile section of the Sacramento River and the entire length of the 29-mile navigation channel. The upper 25 miles of the navigation channel is man-made, and the 8.4 miles of the navigation channel nearest the Port was previously dredged to 35 feet below mean lower low water MLLW. The Port of West Sacramento has historically served the agricultural industry, but has expanded its business to include additional commodities such as cement, biofuels, and wood pellets. Due to the current channel configuration, vessels laden with some cargos must light-load to safely navigate the SRDWSC. In addition, the existing widths of sections of the SRDWSC can make navigating to the Port difficult, particularly in inclement weather. This project was partially completed in 1990, but was suspended due to lack of funding. Two action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this supplemental draft EIS. The proposed project (Channel Deepening to -35 Feet MLLW and Selective Widening Alternative) would involve reinitiating the previously approved dredging from river miles 0.0 to 35.0 and completing the construction that was suspended. The total volume of dredged material is estimated to be 8.1 million cubic yards (cy) including a one-foot paid overdepth, and 10 million cy including a two-foot overdepth. Dredged material would be placed at 10 upland sites which would either permanently accommodate or temporarily stockpile the material for later beneficial reuse. Dredging would occur during project-specific work windows designed to reduce potential impact to sensitive aquatic species including salmonids, delta smelt, and longfin smelt. If six-month work windows are permitted, the proposed project could be constructed in four years. The -33 Feet MLLW Alternative would involve deepening the SRDWSC to a depth of 33 feet within the same dredging footprint as the proposed project and include maintenance dredging of the SRDWSC within the northernmost eight miles of the channel nearest the Port. The total dredged material volume for this alternative is anticipated to be 4 million cy with a one-foot overdepth or 5.2 million cy with a two-foot overdepth. Dredged material would be placed at seven sites which would either permanently accommodate or temporarily stockpile the material. Assuming construction occurs during six-month windows, the -33 Feet MLLW Alternative could be constructed in two to three years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A deeper and wider channel would improve economies of scale and overall navigation safety for commercial vessel traffic. With a 35-foot-deep channel or a 33-foot-deep channel, 100 or 114 vessels could carry the same amount of cargo as 143 vessels carry without the project. One million to three million cy of dredged material would be beneficially reused for construction or levee reinforcement under a confirmed arrangement with a disposal site owner. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increasing the channel's side slope would result in a 10 percent increase in the sedimentation rate in the SRDWSC. Implementation of either action alternative would result in loss of delta smelt critical habitat. Construction would require the relocation of at least two gas pipelines. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). JF - EPA number: 110055, 566 pages, March 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 29 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Channels KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Landfills KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - San Joaquin River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127576?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SACRAMENTO+RIVER+DEEP+WATER+SHIP+CHANNEL%2C+CONTRA+COSTA%2C+SACRAMENTO%2C+SOLANO%2C+AND+YOLO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+1980+AND+THE+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+OF+MARCH+1986%29.&rft.title=SACRAMENTO+RIVER+DEEP+WATER+SHIP+CHANNEL%2C+CONTRA+COSTA%2C+SACRAMENTO%2C+SOLANO%2C+AND+YOLO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+1980+AND+THE+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+OF+MARCH+1986%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, San Francisco, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SACRAMENTO RIVER DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CONTRA COSTA, SACRAMENTO, SOLANO, AND YOLO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 1980 AND THE FINAL SUPPLEMENT OF MARCH 1986). [Part 4 of 30] T2 - SACRAMENTO RIVER DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CONTRA COSTA, SACRAMENTO, SOLANO, AND YOLO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 1980 AND THE FINAL SUPPLEMENT OF MARCH 1986). AN - 873127573; 14811-5_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening and selective widening of the Sacramento River Deep Water Ship Channel (SRDWSC), Contra Costa, Sacramento, Solano, and Yolo counties, California is proposed. The 43.4-mile-long SRDWSC is located in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and comprises a 17-mile section of the Sacramento River and the entire length of the 29-mile navigation channel. The upper 25 miles of the navigation channel is man-made, and the 8.4 miles of the navigation channel nearest the Port was previously dredged to 35 feet below mean lower low water MLLW. The Port of West Sacramento has historically served the agricultural industry, but has expanded its business to include additional commodities such as cement, biofuels, and wood pellets. Due to the current channel configuration, vessels laden with some cargos must light-load to safely navigate the SRDWSC. In addition, the existing widths of sections of the SRDWSC can make navigating to the Port difficult, particularly in inclement weather. This project was partially completed in 1990, but was suspended due to lack of funding. Two action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this supplemental draft EIS. The proposed project (Channel Deepening to -35 Feet MLLW and Selective Widening Alternative) would involve reinitiating the previously approved dredging from river miles 0.0 to 35.0 and completing the construction that was suspended. The total volume of dredged material is estimated to be 8.1 million cubic yards (cy) including a one-foot paid overdepth, and 10 million cy including a two-foot overdepth. Dredged material would be placed at 10 upland sites which would either permanently accommodate or temporarily stockpile the material for later beneficial reuse. Dredging would occur during project-specific work windows designed to reduce potential impact to sensitive aquatic species including salmonids, delta smelt, and longfin smelt. If six-month work windows are permitted, the proposed project could be constructed in four years. The -33 Feet MLLW Alternative would involve deepening the SRDWSC to a depth of 33 feet within the same dredging footprint as the proposed project and include maintenance dredging of the SRDWSC within the northernmost eight miles of the channel nearest the Port. The total dredged material volume for this alternative is anticipated to be 4 million cy with a one-foot overdepth or 5.2 million cy with a two-foot overdepth. Dredged material would be placed at seven sites which would either permanently accommodate or temporarily stockpile the material. Assuming construction occurs during six-month windows, the -33 Feet MLLW Alternative could be constructed in two to three years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A deeper and wider channel would improve economies of scale and overall navigation safety for commercial vessel traffic. With a 35-foot-deep channel or a 33-foot-deep channel, 100 or 114 vessels could carry the same amount of cargo as 143 vessels carry without the project. One million to three million cy of dredged material would be beneficially reused for construction or levee reinforcement under a confirmed arrangement with a disposal site owner. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increasing the channel's side slope would result in a 10 percent increase in the sedimentation rate in the SRDWSC. Implementation of either action alternative would result in loss of delta smelt critical habitat. Construction would require the relocation of at least two gas pipelines. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). JF - EPA number: 110055, 566 pages, March 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Channels KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Landfills KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - San Joaquin River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127573?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SACRAMENTO+RIVER+DEEP+WATER+SHIP+CHANNEL%2C+CONTRA+COSTA%2C+SACRAMENTO%2C+SOLANO%2C+AND+YOLO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+1980+AND+THE+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+OF+MARCH+1986%29.&rft.title=SACRAMENTO+RIVER+DEEP+WATER+SHIP+CHANNEL%2C+CONTRA+COSTA%2C+SACRAMENTO%2C+SOLANO%2C+AND+YOLO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+1980+AND+THE+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+OF+MARCH+1986%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, San Francisco, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SACRAMENTO RIVER DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CONTRA COSTA, SACRAMENTO, SOLANO, AND YOLO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 1980 AND THE FINAL SUPPLEMENT OF MARCH 1986). [Part 3 of 30] T2 - SACRAMENTO RIVER DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CONTRA COSTA, SACRAMENTO, SOLANO, AND YOLO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 1980 AND THE FINAL SUPPLEMENT OF MARCH 1986). AN - 873127566; 14811-5_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening and selective widening of the Sacramento River Deep Water Ship Channel (SRDWSC), Contra Costa, Sacramento, Solano, and Yolo counties, California is proposed. The 43.4-mile-long SRDWSC is located in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and comprises a 17-mile section of the Sacramento River and the entire length of the 29-mile navigation channel. The upper 25 miles of the navigation channel is man-made, and the 8.4 miles of the navigation channel nearest the Port was previously dredged to 35 feet below mean lower low water MLLW. The Port of West Sacramento has historically served the agricultural industry, but has expanded its business to include additional commodities such as cement, biofuels, and wood pellets. Due to the current channel configuration, vessels laden with some cargos must light-load to safely navigate the SRDWSC. In addition, the existing widths of sections of the SRDWSC can make navigating to the Port difficult, particularly in inclement weather. This project was partially completed in 1990, but was suspended due to lack of funding. Two action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this supplemental draft EIS. The proposed project (Channel Deepening to -35 Feet MLLW and Selective Widening Alternative) would involve reinitiating the previously approved dredging from river miles 0.0 to 35.0 and completing the construction that was suspended. The total volume of dredged material is estimated to be 8.1 million cubic yards (cy) including a one-foot paid overdepth, and 10 million cy including a two-foot overdepth. Dredged material would be placed at 10 upland sites which would either permanently accommodate or temporarily stockpile the material for later beneficial reuse. Dredging would occur during project-specific work windows designed to reduce potential impact to sensitive aquatic species including salmonids, delta smelt, and longfin smelt. If six-month work windows are permitted, the proposed project could be constructed in four years. The -33 Feet MLLW Alternative would involve deepening the SRDWSC to a depth of 33 feet within the same dredging footprint as the proposed project and include maintenance dredging of the SRDWSC within the northernmost eight miles of the channel nearest the Port. The total dredged material volume for this alternative is anticipated to be 4 million cy with a one-foot overdepth or 5.2 million cy with a two-foot overdepth. Dredged material would be placed at seven sites which would either permanently accommodate or temporarily stockpile the material. Assuming construction occurs during six-month windows, the -33 Feet MLLW Alternative could be constructed in two to three years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A deeper and wider channel would improve economies of scale and overall navigation safety for commercial vessel traffic. With a 35-foot-deep channel or a 33-foot-deep channel, 100 or 114 vessels could carry the same amount of cargo as 143 vessels carry without the project. One million to three million cy of dredged material would be beneficially reused for construction or levee reinforcement under a confirmed arrangement with a disposal site owner. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increasing the channel's side slope would result in a 10 percent increase in the sedimentation rate in the SRDWSC. Implementation of either action alternative would result in loss of delta smelt critical habitat. Construction would require the relocation of at least two gas pipelines. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). JF - EPA number: 110055, 566 pages, March 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Channels KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Landfills KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - San Joaquin River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127566?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=Regina&rft.date=2013-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=9781303291845&rft.btitle=&rft.title=The+Relationship+between+Professional+Learning+Community+Implementation+and+Academic+Achievement+and+Graduation+Rates+in+Georgia+High+Schools&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, San Francisco, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SACRAMENTO RIVER DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CONTRA COSTA, SACRAMENTO, SOLANO, AND YOLO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 1980 AND THE FINAL SUPPLEMENT OF MARCH 1986). [Part 2 of 30] T2 - SACRAMENTO RIVER DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CONTRA COSTA, SACRAMENTO, SOLANO, AND YOLO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 1980 AND THE FINAL SUPPLEMENT OF MARCH 1986). AN - 873127558; 14811-5_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening and selective widening of the Sacramento River Deep Water Ship Channel (SRDWSC), Contra Costa, Sacramento, Solano, and Yolo counties, California is proposed. The 43.4-mile-long SRDWSC is located in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and comprises a 17-mile section of the Sacramento River and the entire length of the 29-mile navigation channel. The upper 25 miles of the navigation channel is man-made, and the 8.4 miles of the navigation channel nearest the Port was previously dredged to 35 feet below mean lower low water MLLW. The Port of West Sacramento has historically served the agricultural industry, but has expanded its business to include additional commodities such as cement, biofuels, and wood pellets. Due to the current channel configuration, vessels laden with some cargos must light-load to safely navigate the SRDWSC. In addition, the existing widths of sections of the SRDWSC can make navigating to the Port difficult, particularly in inclement weather. This project was partially completed in 1990, but was suspended due to lack of funding. Two action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this supplemental draft EIS. The proposed project (Channel Deepening to -35 Feet MLLW and Selective Widening Alternative) would involve reinitiating the previously approved dredging from river miles 0.0 to 35.0 and completing the construction that was suspended. The total volume of dredged material is estimated to be 8.1 million cubic yards (cy) including a one-foot paid overdepth, and 10 million cy including a two-foot overdepth. Dredged material would be placed at 10 upland sites which would either permanently accommodate or temporarily stockpile the material for later beneficial reuse. Dredging would occur during project-specific work windows designed to reduce potential impact to sensitive aquatic species including salmonids, delta smelt, and longfin smelt. If six-month work windows are permitted, the proposed project could be constructed in four years. The -33 Feet MLLW Alternative would involve deepening the SRDWSC to a depth of 33 feet within the same dredging footprint as the proposed project and include maintenance dredging of the SRDWSC within the northernmost eight miles of the channel nearest the Port. The total dredged material volume for this alternative is anticipated to be 4 million cy with a one-foot overdepth or 5.2 million cy with a two-foot overdepth. Dredged material would be placed at seven sites which would either permanently accommodate or temporarily stockpile the material. Assuming construction occurs during six-month windows, the -33 Feet MLLW Alternative could be constructed in two to three years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A deeper and wider channel would improve economies of scale and overall navigation safety for commercial vessel traffic. With a 35-foot-deep channel or a 33-foot-deep channel, 100 or 114 vessels could carry the same amount of cargo as 143 vessels carry without the project. One million to three million cy of dredged material would be beneficially reused for construction or levee reinforcement under a confirmed arrangement with a disposal site owner. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increasing the channel's side slope would result in a 10 percent increase in the sedimentation rate in the SRDWSC. Implementation of either action alternative would result in loss of delta smelt critical habitat. Construction would require the relocation of at least two gas pipelines. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). JF - EPA number: 110055, 566 pages, March 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Channels KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Landfills KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - San Joaquin River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127558?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SACRAMENTO+RIVER+DEEP+WATER+SHIP+CHANNEL%2C+CONTRA+COSTA%2C+SACRAMENTO%2C+SOLANO%2C+AND+YOLO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+1980+AND+THE+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+OF+MARCH+1986%29.&rft.title=SACRAMENTO+RIVER+DEEP+WATER+SHIP+CHANNEL%2C+CONTRA+COSTA%2C+SACRAMENTO%2C+SOLANO%2C+AND+YOLO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+1980+AND+THE+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+OF+MARCH+1986%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, San Francisco, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SACRAMENTO RIVER DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CONTRA COSTA, SACRAMENTO, SOLANO, AND YOLO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 1980 AND THE FINAL SUPPLEMENT OF MARCH 1986). [Part 19 of 30] T2 - SACRAMENTO RIVER DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CONTRA COSTA, SACRAMENTO, SOLANO, AND YOLO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 1980 AND THE FINAL SUPPLEMENT OF MARCH 1986). AN - 873127443; 14811-5_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening and selective widening of the Sacramento River Deep Water Ship Channel (SRDWSC), Contra Costa, Sacramento, Solano, and Yolo counties, California is proposed. The 43.4-mile-long SRDWSC is located in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and comprises a 17-mile section of the Sacramento River and the entire length of the 29-mile navigation channel. The upper 25 miles of the navigation channel is man-made, and the 8.4 miles of the navigation channel nearest the Port was previously dredged to 35 feet below mean lower low water MLLW. The Port of West Sacramento has historically served the agricultural industry, but has expanded its business to include additional commodities such as cement, biofuels, and wood pellets. Due to the current channel configuration, vessels laden with some cargos must light-load to safely navigate the SRDWSC. In addition, the existing widths of sections of the SRDWSC can make navigating to the Port difficult, particularly in inclement weather. This project was partially completed in 1990, but was suspended due to lack of funding. Two action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this supplemental draft EIS. The proposed project (Channel Deepening to -35 Feet MLLW and Selective Widening Alternative) would involve reinitiating the previously approved dredging from river miles 0.0 to 35.0 and completing the construction that was suspended. The total volume of dredged material is estimated to be 8.1 million cubic yards (cy) including a one-foot paid overdepth, and 10 million cy including a two-foot overdepth. Dredged material would be placed at 10 upland sites which would either permanently accommodate or temporarily stockpile the material for later beneficial reuse. Dredging would occur during project-specific work windows designed to reduce potential impact to sensitive aquatic species including salmonids, delta smelt, and longfin smelt. If six-month work windows are permitted, the proposed project could be constructed in four years. The -33 Feet MLLW Alternative would involve deepening the SRDWSC to a depth of 33 feet within the same dredging footprint as the proposed project and include maintenance dredging of the SRDWSC within the northernmost eight miles of the channel nearest the Port. The total dredged material volume for this alternative is anticipated to be 4 million cy with a one-foot overdepth or 5.2 million cy with a two-foot overdepth. Dredged material would be placed at seven sites which would either permanently accommodate or temporarily stockpile the material. Assuming construction occurs during six-month windows, the -33 Feet MLLW Alternative could be constructed in two to three years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A deeper and wider channel would improve economies of scale and overall navigation safety for commercial vessel traffic. With a 35-foot-deep channel or a 33-foot-deep channel, 100 or 114 vessels could carry the same amount of cargo as 143 vessels carry without the project. One million to three million cy of dredged material would be beneficially reused for construction or levee reinforcement under a confirmed arrangement with a disposal site owner. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increasing the channel's side slope would result in a 10 percent increase in the sedimentation rate in the SRDWSC. Implementation of either action alternative would result in loss of delta smelt critical habitat. Construction would require the relocation of at least two gas pipelines. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). JF - EPA number: 110055, 566 pages, March 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 19 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Channels KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Landfills KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - San Joaquin River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127443?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SACRAMENTO+RIVER+DEEP+WATER+SHIP+CHANNEL%2C+CONTRA+COSTA%2C+SACRAMENTO%2C+SOLANO%2C+AND+YOLO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+1980+AND+THE+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+OF+MARCH+1986%29.&rft.title=SACRAMENTO+RIVER+DEEP+WATER+SHIP+CHANNEL%2C+CONTRA+COSTA%2C+SACRAMENTO%2C+SOLANO%2C+AND+YOLO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+1980+AND+THE+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+OF+MARCH+1986%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, San Francisco, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SACRAMENTO RIVER DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CONTRA COSTA, SACRAMENTO, SOLANO, AND YOLO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 1980 AND THE FINAL SUPPLEMENT OF MARCH 1986). [Part 18 of 30] T2 - SACRAMENTO RIVER DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CONTRA COSTA, SACRAMENTO, SOLANO, AND YOLO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 1980 AND THE FINAL SUPPLEMENT OF MARCH 1986). AN - 873127437; 14811-5_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening and selective widening of the Sacramento River Deep Water Ship Channel (SRDWSC), Contra Costa, Sacramento, Solano, and Yolo counties, California is proposed. The 43.4-mile-long SRDWSC is located in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and comprises a 17-mile section of the Sacramento River and the entire length of the 29-mile navigation channel. The upper 25 miles of the navigation channel is man-made, and the 8.4 miles of the navigation channel nearest the Port was previously dredged to 35 feet below mean lower low water MLLW. The Port of West Sacramento has historically served the agricultural industry, but has expanded its business to include additional commodities such as cement, biofuels, and wood pellets. Due to the current channel configuration, vessels laden with some cargos must light-load to safely navigate the SRDWSC. In addition, the existing widths of sections of the SRDWSC can make navigating to the Port difficult, particularly in inclement weather. This project was partially completed in 1990, but was suspended due to lack of funding. Two action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this supplemental draft EIS. The proposed project (Channel Deepening to -35 Feet MLLW and Selective Widening Alternative) would involve reinitiating the previously approved dredging from river miles 0.0 to 35.0 and completing the construction that was suspended. The total volume of dredged material is estimated to be 8.1 million cubic yards (cy) including a one-foot paid overdepth, and 10 million cy including a two-foot overdepth. Dredged material would be placed at 10 upland sites which would either permanently accommodate or temporarily stockpile the material for later beneficial reuse. Dredging would occur during project-specific work windows designed to reduce potential impact to sensitive aquatic species including salmonids, delta smelt, and longfin smelt. If six-month work windows are permitted, the proposed project could be constructed in four years. The -33 Feet MLLW Alternative would involve deepening the SRDWSC to a depth of 33 feet within the same dredging footprint as the proposed project and include maintenance dredging of the SRDWSC within the northernmost eight miles of the channel nearest the Port. The total dredged material volume for this alternative is anticipated to be 4 million cy with a one-foot overdepth or 5.2 million cy with a two-foot overdepth. Dredged material would be placed at seven sites which would either permanently accommodate or temporarily stockpile the material. Assuming construction occurs during six-month windows, the -33 Feet MLLW Alternative could be constructed in two to three years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A deeper and wider channel would improve economies of scale and overall navigation safety for commercial vessel traffic. With a 35-foot-deep channel or a 33-foot-deep channel, 100 or 114 vessels could carry the same amount of cargo as 143 vessels carry without the project. One million to three million cy of dredged material would be beneficially reused for construction or levee reinforcement under a confirmed arrangement with a disposal site owner. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increasing the channel's side slope would result in a 10 percent increase in the sedimentation rate in the SRDWSC. Implementation of either action alternative would result in loss of delta smelt critical habitat. Construction would require the relocation of at least two gas pipelines. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). JF - EPA number: 110055, 566 pages, March 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 18 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Channels KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Landfills KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - San Joaquin River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127437?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=Arthur&rft.date=2011-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=9781124405766&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Efficacy+of+a+Summer+Intervention+to+Improve+GATEWAY+Mathematics+Examination+Scores&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, San Francisco, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SACRAMENTO RIVER DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CONTRA COSTA, SACRAMENTO, SOLANO, AND YOLO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 1980 AND THE FINAL SUPPLEMENT OF MARCH 1986). [Part 17 of 30] T2 - SACRAMENTO RIVER DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CONTRA COSTA, SACRAMENTO, SOLANO, AND YOLO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 1980 AND THE FINAL SUPPLEMENT OF MARCH 1986). AN - 873127433; 14811-5_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening and selective widening of the Sacramento River Deep Water Ship Channel (SRDWSC), Contra Costa, Sacramento, Solano, and Yolo counties, California is proposed. The 43.4-mile-long SRDWSC is located in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and comprises a 17-mile section of the Sacramento River and the entire length of the 29-mile navigation channel. The upper 25 miles of the navigation channel is man-made, and the 8.4 miles of the navigation channel nearest the Port was previously dredged to 35 feet below mean lower low water MLLW. The Port of West Sacramento has historically served the agricultural industry, but has expanded its business to include additional commodities such as cement, biofuels, and wood pellets. Due to the current channel configuration, vessels laden with some cargos must light-load to safely navigate the SRDWSC. In addition, the existing widths of sections of the SRDWSC can make navigating to the Port difficult, particularly in inclement weather. This project was partially completed in 1990, but was suspended due to lack of funding. Two action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this supplemental draft EIS. The proposed project (Channel Deepening to -35 Feet MLLW and Selective Widening Alternative) would involve reinitiating the previously approved dredging from river miles 0.0 to 35.0 and completing the construction that was suspended. The total volume of dredged material is estimated to be 8.1 million cubic yards (cy) including a one-foot paid overdepth, and 10 million cy including a two-foot overdepth. Dredged material would be placed at 10 upland sites which would either permanently accommodate or temporarily stockpile the material for later beneficial reuse. Dredging would occur during project-specific work windows designed to reduce potential impact to sensitive aquatic species including salmonids, delta smelt, and longfin smelt. If six-month work windows are permitted, the proposed project could be constructed in four years. The -33 Feet MLLW Alternative would involve deepening the SRDWSC to a depth of 33 feet within the same dredging footprint as the proposed project and include maintenance dredging of the SRDWSC within the northernmost eight miles of the channel nearest the Port. The total dredged material volume for this alternative is anticipated to be 4 million cy with a one-foot overdepth or 5.2 million cy with a two-foot overdepth. Dredged material would be placed at seven sites which would either permanently accommodate or temporarily stockpile the material. Assuming construction occurs during six-month windows, the -33 Feet MLLW Alternative could be constructed in two to three years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A deeper and wider channel would improve economies of scale and overall navigation safety for commercial vessel traffic. With a 35-foot-deep channel or a 33-foot-deep channel, 100 or 114 vessels could carry the same amount of cargo as 143 vessels carry without the project. One million to three million cy of dredged material would be beneficially reused for construction or levee reinforcement under a confirmed arrangement with a disposal site owner. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increasing the channel's side slope would result in a 10 percent increase in the sedimentation rate in the SRDWSC. Implementation of either action alternative would result in loss of delta smelt critical habitat. Construction would require the relocation of at least two gas pipelines. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). JF - EPA number: 110055, 566 pages, March 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 17 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Channels KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Landfills KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - San Joaquin River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127433?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SACRAMENTO+RIVER+DEEP+WATER+SHIP+CHANNEL%2C+CONTRA+COSTA%2C+SACRAMENTO%2C+SOLANO%2C+AND+YOLO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+1980+AND+THE+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+OF+MARCH+1986%29.&rft.title=SACRAMENTO+RIVER+DEEP+WATER+SHIP+CHANNEL%2C+CONTRA+COSTA%2C+SACRAMENTO%2C+SOLANO%2C+AND+YOLO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+1980+AND+THE+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+OF+MARCH+1986%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, San Francisco, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SACRAMENTO RIVER DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CONTRA COSTA, SACRAMENTO, SOLANO, AND YOLO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 1980 AND THE FINAL SUPPLEMENT OF MARCH 1986). [Part 30 of 30] T2 - SACRAMENTO RIVER DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CONTRA COSTA, SACRAMENTO, SOLANO, AND YOLO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 1980 AND THE FINAL SUPPLEMENT OF MARCH 1986). AN - 873127193; 14811-5_0030 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening and selective widening of the Sacramento River Deep Water Ship Channel (SRDWSC), Contra Costa, Sacramento, Solano, and Yolo counties, California is proposed. The 43.4-mile-long SRDWSC is located in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and comprises a 17-mile section of the Sacramento River and the entire length of the 29-mile navigation channel. The upper 25 miles of the navigation channel is man-made, and the 8.4 miles of the navigation channel nearest the Port was previously dredged to 35 feet below mean lower low water MLLW. The Port of West Sacramento has historically served the agricultural industry, but has expanded its business to include additional commodities such as cement, biofuels, and wood pellets. Due to the current channel configuration, vessels laden with some cargos must light-load to safely navigate the SRDWSC. In addition, the existing widths of sections of the SRDWSC can make navigating to the Port difficult, particularly in inclement weather. This project was partially completed in 1990, but was suspended due to lack of funding. Two action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this supplemental draft EIS. The proposed project (Channel Deepening to -35 Feet MLLW and Selective Widening Alternative) would involve reinitiating the previously approved dredging from river miles 0.0 to 35.0 and completing the construction that was suspended. The total volume of dredged material is estimated to be 8.1 million cubic yards (cy) including a one-foot paid overdepth, and 10 million cy including a two-foot overdepth. Dredged material would be placed at 10 upland sites which would either permanently accommodate or temporarily stockpile the material for later beneficial reuse. Dredging would occur during project-specific work windows designed to reduce potential impact to sensitive aquatic species including salmonids, delta smelt, and longfin smelt. If six-month work windows are permitted, the proposed project could be constructed in four years. The -33 Feet MLLW Alternative would involve deepening the SRDWSC to a depth of 33 feet within the same dredging footprint as the proposed project and include maintenance dredging of the SRDWSC within the northernmost eight miles of the channel nearest the Port. The total dredged material volume for this alternative is anticipated to be 4 million cy with a one-foot overdepth or 5.2 million cy with a two-foot overdepth. Dredged material would be placed at seven sites which would either permanently accommodate or temporarily stockpile the material. Assuming construction occurs during six-month windows, the -33 Feet MLLW Alternative could be constructed in two to three years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A deeper and wider channel would improve economies of scale and overall navigation safety for commercial vessel traffic. With a 35-foot-deep channel or a 33-foot-deep channel, 100 or 114 vessels could carry the same amount of cargo as 143 vessels carry without the project. One million to three million cy of dredged material would be beneficially reused for construction or levee reinforcement under a confirmed arrangement with a disposal site owner. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increasing the channel's side slope would result in a 10 percent increase in the sedimentation rate in the SRDWSC. Implementation of either action alternative would result in loss of delta smelt critical habitat. Construction would require the relocation of at least two gas pipelines. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). JF - EPA number: 110055, 566 pages, March 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 30 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Channels KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Landfills KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - San Joaquin River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127193?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SACRAMENTO+RIVER+DEEP+WATER+SHIP+CHANNEL%2C+CONTRA+COSTA%2C+SACRAMENTO%2C+SOLANO%2C+AND+YOLO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+1980+AND+THE+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+OF+MARCH+1986%29.&rft.title=SACRAMENTO+RIVER+DEEP+WATER+SHIP+CHANNEL%2C+CONTRA+COSTA%2C+SACRAMENTO%2C+SOLANO%2C+AND+YOLO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+1980+AND+THE+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+OF+MARCH+1986%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, San Francisco, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SACRAMENTO RIVER DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CONTRA COSTA, SACRAMENTO, SOLANO, AND YOLO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 1980 AND THE FINAL SUPPLEMENT OF MARCH 1986). [Part 24 of 30] T2 - SACRAMENTO RIVER DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CONTRA COSTA, SACRAMENTO, SOLANO, AND YOLO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 1980 AND THE FINAL SUPPLEMENT OF MARCH 1986). AN - 873126916; 14811-5_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening and selective widening of the Sacramento River Deep Water Ship Channel (SRDWSC), Contra Costa, Sacramento, Solano, and Yolo counties, California is proposed. The 43.4-mile-long SRDWSC is located in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and comprises a 17-mile section of the Sacramento River and the entire length of the 29-mile navigation channel. The upper 25 miles of the navigation channel is man-made, and the 8.4 miles of the navigation channel nearest the Port was previously dredged to 35 feet below mean lower low water MLLW. The Port of West Sacramento has historically served the agricultural industry, but has expanded its business to include additional commodities such as cement, biofuels, and wood pellets. Due to the current channel configuration, vessels laden with some cargos must light-load to safely navigate the SRDWSC. In addition, the existing widths of sections of the SRDWSC can make navigating to the Port difficult, particularly in inclement weather. This project was partially completed in 1990, but was suspended due to lack of funding. Two action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this supplemental draft EIS. The proposed project (Channel Deepening to -35 Feet MLLW and Selective Widening Alternative) would involve reinitiating the previously approved dredging from river miles 0.0 to 35.0 and completing the construction that was suspended. The total volume of dredged material is estimated to be 8.1 million cubic yards (cy) including a one-foot paid overdepth, and 10 million cy including a two-foot overdepth. Dredged material would be placed at 10 upland sites which would either permanently accommodate or temporarily stockpile the material for later beneficial reuse. Dredging would occur during project-specific work windows designed to reduce potential impact to sensitive aquatic species including salmonids, delta smelt, and longfin smelt. If six-month work windows are permitted, the proposed project could be constructed in four years. The -33 Feet MLLW Alternative would involve deepening the SRDWSC to a depth of 33 feet within the same dredging footprint as the proposed project and include maintenance dredging of the SRDWSC within the northernmost eight miles of the channel nearest the Port. The total dredged material volume for this alternative is anticipated to be 4 million cy with a one-foot overdepth or 5.2 million cy with a two-foot overdepth. Dredged material would be placed at seven sites which would either permanently accommodate or temporarily stockpile the material. Assuming construction occurs during six-month windows, the -33 Feet MLLW Alternative could be constructed in two to three years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A deeper and wider channel would improve economies of scale and overall navigation safety for commercial vessel traffic. With a 35-foot-deep channel or a 33-foot-deep channel, 100 or 114 vessels could carry the same amount of cargo as 143 vessels carry without the project. One million to three million cy of dredged material would be beneficially reused for construction or levee reinforcement under a confirmed arrangement with a disposal site owner. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increasing the channel's side slope would result in a 10 percent increase in the sedimentation rate in the SRDWSC. Implementation of either action alternative would result in loss of delta smelt critical habitat. Construction would require the relocation of at least two gas pipelines. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). JF - EPA number: 110055, 566 pages, March 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 24 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Channels KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Landfills KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - San Joaquin River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126916?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SACRAMENTO+RIVER+DEEP+WATER+SHIP+CHANNEL%2C+CONTRA+COSTA%2C+SACRAMENTO%2C+SOLANO%2C+AND+YOLO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+1980+AND+THE+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+OF+MARCH+1986%29.&rft.title=SACRAMENTO+RIVER+DEEP+WATER+SHIP+CHANNEL%2C+CONTRA+COSTA%2C+SACRAMENTO%2C+SOLANO%2C+AND+YOLO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+1980+AND+THE+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+OF+MARCH+1986%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, San Francisco, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SACRAMENTO RIVER DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CONTRA COSTA, SACRAMENTO, SOLANO, AND YOLO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 1980 AND THE FINAL SUPPLEMENT OF MARCH 1986). [Part 23 of 30] T2 - SACRAMENTO RIVER DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CONTRA COSTA, SACRAMENTO, SOLANO, AND YOLO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 1980 AND THE FINAL SUPPLEMENT OF MARCH 1986). AN - 873126910; 14811-5_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening and selective widening of the Sacramento River Deep Water Ship Channel (SRDWSC), Contra Costa, Sacramento, Solano, and Yolo counties, California is proposed. The 43.4-mile-long SRDWSC is located in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and comprises a 17-mile section of the Sacramento River and the entire length of the 29-mile navigation channel. The upper 25 miles of the navigation channel is man-made, and the 8.4 miles of the navigation channel nearest the Port was previously dredged to 35 feet below mean lower low water MLLW. The Port of West Sacramento has historically served the agricultural industry, but has expanded its business to include additional commodities such as cement, biofuels, and wood pellets. Due to the current channel configuration, vessels laden with some cargos must light-load to safely navigate the SRDWSC. In addition, the existing widths of sections of the SRDWSC can make navigating to the Port difficult, particularly in inclement weather. This project was partially completed in 1990, but was suspended due to lack of funding. Two action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this supplemental draft EIS. The proposed project (Channel Deepening to -35 Feet MLLW and Selective Widening Alternative) would involve reinitiating the previously approved dredging from river miles 0.0 to 35.0 and completing the construction that was suspended. The total volume of dredged material is estimated to be 8.1 million cubic yards (cy) including a one-foot paid overdepth, and 10 million cy including a two-foot overdepth. Dredged material would be placed at 10 upland sites which would either permanently accommodate or temporarily stockpile the material for later beneficial reuse. Dredging would occur during project-specific work windows designed to reduce potential impact to sensitive aquatic species including salmonids, delta smelt, and longfin smelt. If six-month work windows are permitted, the proposed project could be constructed in four years. The -33 Feet MLLW Alternative would involve deepening the SRDWSC to a depth of 33 feet within the same dredging footprint as the proposed project and include maintenance dredging of the SRDWSC within the northernmost eight miles of the channel nearest the Port. The total dredged material volume for this alternative is anticipated to be 4 million cy with a one-foot overdepth or 5.2 million cy with a two-foot overdepth. Dredged material would be placed at seven sites which would either permanently accommodate or temporarily stockpile the material. Assuming construction occurs during six-month windows, the -33 Feet MLLW Alternative could be constructed in two to three years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A deeper and wider channel would improve economies of scale and overall navigation safety for commercial vessel traffic. With a 35-foot-deep channel or a 33-foot-deep channel, 100 or 114 vessels could carry the same amount of cargo as 143 vessels carry without the project. One million to three million cy of dredged material would be beneficially reused for construction or levee reinforcement under a confirmed arrangement with a disposal site owner. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increasing the channel's side slope would result in a 10 percent increase in the sedimentation rate in the SRDWSC. Implementation of either action alternative would result in loss of delta smelt critical habitat. Construction would require the relocation of at least two gas pipelines. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). JF - EPA number: 110055, 566 pages, March 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 23 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Channels KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Landfills KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - San Joaquin River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126910?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SACRAMENTO+RIVER+DEEP+WATER+SHIP+CHANNEL%2C+CONTRA+COSTA%2C+SACRAMENTO%2C+SOLANO%2C+AND+YOLO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+1980+AND+THE+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+OF+MARCH+1986%29.&rft.title=SACRAMENTO+RIVER+DEEP+WATER+SHIP+CHANNEL%2C+CONTRA+COSTA%2C+SACRAMENTO%2C+SOLANO%2C+AND+YOLO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+1980+AND+THE+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+OF+MARCH+1986%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, San Francisco, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SACRAMENTO RIVER DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CONTRA COSTA, SACRAMENTO, SOLANO, AND YOLO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 1980 AND THE FINAL SUPPLEMENT OF MARCH 1986). [Part 22 of 30] T2 - SACRAMENTO RIVER DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CONTRA COSTA, SACRAMENTO, SOLANO, AND YOLO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 1980 AND THE FINAL SUPPLEMENT OF MARCH 1986). AN - 873126906; 14811-5_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening and selective widening of the Sacramento River Deep Water Ship Channel (SRDWSC), Contra Costa, Sacramento, Solano, and Yolo counties, California is proposed. The 43.4-mile-long SRDWSC is located in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and comprises a 17-mile section of the Sacramento River and the entire length of the 29-mile navigation channel. The upper 25 miles of the navigation channel is man-made, and the 8.4 miles of the navigation channel nearest the Port was previously dredged to 35 feet below mean lower low water MLLW. The Port of West Sacramento has historically served the agricultural industry, but has expanded its business to include additional commodities such as cement, biofuels, and wood pellets. Due to the current channel configuration, vessels laden with some cargos must light-load to safely navigate the SRDWSC. In addition, the existing widths of sections of the SRDWSC can make navigating to the Port difficult, particularly in inclement weather. This project was partially completed in 1990, but was suspended due to lack of funding. Two action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this supplemental draft EIS. The proposed project (Channel Deepening to -35 Feet MLLW and Selective Widening Alternative) would involve reinitiating the previously approved dredging from river miles 0.0 to 35.0 and completing the construction that was suspended. The total volume of dredged material is estimated to be 8.1 million cubic yards (cy) including a one-foot paid overdepth, and 10 million cy including a two-foot overdepth. Dredged material would be placed at 10 upland sites which would either permanently accommodate or temporarily stockpile the material for later beneficial reuse. Dredging would occur during project-specific work windows designed to reduce potential impact to sensitive aquatic species including salmonids, delta smelt, and longfin smelt. If six-month work windows are permitted, the proposed project could be constructed in four years. The -33 Feet MLLW Alternative would involve deepening the SRDWSC to a depth of 33 feet within the same dredging footprint as the proposed project and include maintenance dredging of the SRDWSC within the northernmost eight miles of the channel nearest the Port. The total dredged material volume for this alternative is anticipated to be 4 million cy with a one-foot overdepth or 5.2 million cy with a two-foot overdepth. Dredged material would be placed at seven sites which would either permanently accommodate or temporarily stockpile the material. Assuming construction occurs during six-month windows, the -33 Feet MLLW Alternative could be constructed in two to three years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A deeper and wider channel would improve economies of scale and overall navigation safety for commercial vessel traffic. With a 35-foot-deep channel or a 33-foot-deep channel, 100 or 114 vessels could carry the same amount of cargo as 143 vessels carry without the project. One million to three million cy of dredged material would be beneficially reused for construction or levee reinforcement under a confirmed arrangement with a disposal site owner. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increasing the channel's side slope would result in a 10 percent increase in the sedimentation rate in the SRDWSC. Implementation of either action alternative would result in loss of delta smelt critical habitat. Construction would require the relocation of at least two gas pipelines. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). JF - EPA number: 110055, 566 pages, March 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 22 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Channels KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Landfills KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - San Joaquin River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126906?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SACRAMENTO+RIVER+DEEP+WATER+SHIP+CHANNEL%2C+CONTRA+COSTA%2C+SACRAMENTO%2C+SOLANO%2C+AND+YOLO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+1980+AND+THE+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+OF+MARCH+1986%29.&rft.title=SACRAMENTO+RIVER+DEEP+WATER+SHIP+CHANNEL%2C+CONTRA+COSTA%2C+SACRAMENTO%2C+SOLANO%2C+AND+YOLO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+1980+AND+THE+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+OF+MARCH+1986%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, San Francisco, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SACRAMENTO RIVER DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CONTRA COSTA, SACRAMENTO, SOLANO, AND YOLO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 1980 AND THE FINAL SUPPLEMENT OF MARCH 1986). [Part 21 of 30] T2 - SACRAMENTO RIVER DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CONTRA COSTA, SACRAMENTO, SOLANO, AND YOLO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 1980 AND THE FINAL SUPPLEMENT OF MARCH 1986). AN - 873126899; 14811-5_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening and selective widening of the Sacramento River Deep Water Ship Channel (SRDWSC), Contra Costa, Sacramento, Solano, and Yolo counties, California is proposed. The 43.4-mile-long SRDWSC is located in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and comprises a 17-mile section of the Sacramento River and the entire length of the 29-mile navigation channel. The upper 25 miles of the navigation channel is man-made, and the 8.4 miles of the navigation channel nearest the Port was previously dredged to 35 feet below mean lower low water MLLW. The Port of West Sacramento has historically served the agricultural industry, but has expanded its business to include additional commodities such as cement, biofuels, and wood pellets. Due to the current channel configuration, vessels laden with some cargos must light-load to safely navigate the SRDWSC. In addition, the existing widths of sections of the SRDWSC can make navigating to the Port difficult, particularly in inclement weather. This project was partially completed in 1990, but was suspended due to lack of funding. Two action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this supplemental draft EIS. The proposed project (Channel Deepening to -35 Feet MLLW and Selective Widening Alternative) would involve reinitiating the previously approved dredging from river miles 0.0 to 35.0 and completing the construction that was suspended. The total volume of dredged material is estimated to be 8.1 million cubic yards (cy) including a one-foot paid overdepth, and 10 million cy including a two-foot overdepth. Dredged material would be placed at 10 upland sites which would either permanently accommodate or temporarily stockpile the material for later beneficial reuse. Dredging would occur during project-specific work windows designed to reduce potential impact to sensitive aquatic species including salmonids, delta smelt, and longfin smelt. If six-month work windows are permitted, the proposed project could be constructed in four years. The -33 Feet MLLW Alternative would involve deepening the SRDWSC to a depth of 33 feet within the same dredging footprint as the proposed project and include maintenance dredging of the SRDWSC within the northernmost eight miles of the channel nearest the Port. The total dredged material volume for this alternative is anticipated to be 4 million cy with a one-foot overdepth or 5.2 million cy with a two-foot overdepth. Dredged material would be placed at seven sites which would either permanently accommodate or temporarily stockpile the material. Assuming construction occurs during six-month windows, the -33 Feet MLLW Alternative could be constructed in two to three years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A deeper and wider channel would improve economies of scale and overall navigation safety for commercial vessel traffic. With a 35-foot-deep channel or a 33-foot-deep channel, 100 or 114 vessels could carry the same amount of cargo as 143 vessels carry without the project. One million to three million cy of dredged material would be beneficially reused for construction or levee reinforcement under a confirmed arrangement with a disposal site owner. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increasing the channel's side slope would result in a 10 percent increase in the sedimentation rate in the SRDWSC. Implementation of either action alternative would result in loss of delta smelt critical habitat. Construction would require the relocation of at least two gas pipelines. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). JF - EPA number: 110055, 566 pages, March 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 21 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Channels KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Landfills KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - San Joaquin River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126899?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SACRAMENTO+RIVER+DEEP+WATER+SHIP+CHANNEL%2C+CONTRA+COSTA%2C+SACRAMENTO%2C+SOLANO%2C+AND+YOLO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+1980+AND+THE+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+OF+MARCH+1986%29.&rft.title=SACRAMENTO+RIVER+DEEP+WATER+SHIP+CHANNEL%2C+CONTRA+COSTA%2C+SACRAMENTO%2C+SOLANO%2C+AND+YOLO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+1980+AND+THE+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+OF+MARCH+1986%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, San Francisco, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SACRAMENTO RIVER DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CONTRA COSTA, SACRAMENTO, SOLANO, AND YOLO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 1980 AND THE FINAL SUPPLEMENT OF MARCH 1986). [Part 20 of 30] T2 - SACRAMENTO RIVER DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CONTRA COSTA, SACRAMENTO, SOLANO, AND YOLO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 1980 AND THE FINAL SUPPLEMENT OF MARCH 1986). AN - 873126892; 14811-5_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening and selective widening of the Sacramento River Deep Water Ship Channel (SRDWSC), Contra Costa, Sacramento, Solano, and Yolo counties, California is proposed. The 43.4-mile-long SRDWSC is located in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and comprises a 17-mile section of the Sacramento River and the entire length of the 29-mile navigation channel. The upper 25 miles of the navigation channel is man-made, and the 8.4 miles of the navigation channel nearest the Port was previously dredged to 35 feet below mean lower low water MLLW. The Port of West Sacramento has historically served the agricultural industry, but has expanded its business to include additional commodities such as cement, biofuels, and wood pellets. Due to the current channel configuration, vessels laden with some cargos must light-load to safely navigate the SRDWSC. In addition, the existing widths of sections of the SRDWSC can make navigating to the Port difficult, particularly in inclement weather. This project was partially completed in 1990, but was suspended due to lack of funding. Two action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this supplemental draft EIS. The proposed project (Channel Deepening to -35 Feet MLLW and Selective Widening Alternative) would involve reinitiating the previously approved dredging from river miles 0.0 to 35.0 and completing the construction that was suspended. The total volume of dredged material is estimated to be 8.1 million cubic yards (cy) including a one-foot paid overdepth, and 10 million cy including a two-foot overdepth. Dredged material would be placed at 10 upland sites which would either permanently accommodate or temporarily stockpile the material for later beneficial reuse. Dredging would occur during project-specific work windows designed to reduce potential impact to sensitive aquatic species including salmonids, delta smelt, and longfin smelt. If six-month work windows are permitted, the proposed project could be constructed in four years. The -33 Feet MLLW Alternative would involve deepening the SRDWSC to a depth of 33 feet within the same dredging footprint as the proposed project and include maintenance dredging of the SRDWSC within the northernmost eight miles of the channel nearest the Port. The total dredged material volume for this alternative is anticipated to be 4 million cy with a one-foot overdepth or 5.2 million cy with a two-foot overdepth. Dredged material would be placed at seven sites which would either permanently accommodate or temporarily stockpile the material. Assuming construction occurs during six-month windows, the -33 Feet MLLW Alternative could be constructed in two to three years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A deeper and wider channel would improve economies of scale and overall navigation safety for commercial vessel traffic. With a 35-foot-deep channel or a 33-foot-deep channel, 100 or 114 vessels could carry the same amount of cargo as 143 vessels carry without the project. One million to three million cy of dredged material would be beneficially reused for construction or levee reinforcement under a confirmed arrangement with a disposal site owner. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increasing the channel's side slope would result in a 10 percent increase in the sedimentation rate in the SRDWSC. Implementation of either action alternative would result in loss of delta smelt critical habitat. Construction would require the relocation of at least two gas pipelines. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). JF - EPA number: 110055, 566 pages, March 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 20 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Channels KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Landfills KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - San Joaquin River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126892?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SACRAMENTO+RIVER+DEEP+WATER+SHIP+CHANNEL%2C+CONTRA+COSTA%2C+SACRAMENTO%2C+SOLANO%2C+AND+YOLO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+1980+AND+THE+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+OF+MARCH+1986%29.&rft.title=SACRAMENTO+RIVER+DEEP+WATER+SHIP+CHANNEL%2C+CONTRA+COSTA%2C+SACRAMENTO%2C+SOLANO%2C+AND+YOLO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+1980+AND+THE+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+OF+MARCH+1986%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, San Francisco, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SACRAMENTO RIVER DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CONTRA COSTA, SACRAMENTO, SOLANO, AND YOLO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 1980 AND THE FINAL SUPPLEMENT OF MARCH 1986). [Part 25 of 30] T2 - SACRAMENTO RIVER DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CONTRA COSTA, SACRAMENTO, SOLANO, AND YOLO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 1980 AND THE FINAL SUPPLEMENT OF MARCH 1986). AN - 873126632; 14811-5_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening and selective widening of the Sacramento River Deep Water Ship Channel (SRDWSC), Contra Costa, Sacramento, Solano, and Yolo counties, California is proposed. The 43.4-mile-long SRDWSC is located in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and comprises a 17-mile section of the Sacramento River and the entire length of the 29-mile navigation channel. The upper 25 miles of the navigation channel is man-made, and the 8.4 miles of the navigation channel nearest the Port was previously dredged to 35 feet below mean lower low water MLLW. The Port of West Sacramento has historically served the agricultural industry, but has expanded its business to include additional commodities such as cement, biofuels, and wood pellets. Due to the current channel configuration, vessels laden with some cargos must light-load to safely navigate the SRDWSC. In addition, the existing widths of sections of the SRDWSC can make navigating to the Port difficult, particularly in inclement weather. This project was partially completed in 1990, but was suspended due to lack of funding. Two action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this supplemental draft EIS. The proposed project (Channel Deepening to -35 Feet MLLW and Selective Widening Alternative) would involve reinitiating the previously approved dredging from river miles 0.0 to 35.0 and completing the construction that was suspended. The total volume of dredged material is estimated to be 8.1 million cubic yards (cy) including a one-foot paid overdepth, and 10 million cy including a two-foot overdepth. Dredged material would be placed at 10 upland sites which would either permanently accommodate or temporarily stockpile the material for later beneficial reuse. Dredging would occur during project-specific work windows designed to reduce potential impact to sensitive aquatic species including salmonids, delta smelt, and longfin smelt. If six-month work windows are permitted, the proposed project could be constructed in four years. The -33 Feet MLLW Alternative would involve deepening the SRDWSC to a depth of 33 feet within the same dredging footprint as the proposed project and include maintenance dredging of the SRDWSC within the northernmost eight miles of the channel nearest the Port. The total dredged material volume for this alternative is anticipated to be 4 million cy with a one-foot overdepth or 5.2 million cy with a two-foot overdepth. Dredged material would be placed at seven sites which would either permanently accommodate or temporarily stockpile the material. Assuming construction occurs during six-month windows, the -33 Feet MLLW Alternative could be constructed in two to three years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A deeper and wider channel would improve economies of scale and overall navigation safety for commercial vessel traffic. With a 35-foot-deep channel or a 33-foot-deep channel, 100 or 114 vessels could carry the same amount of cargo as 143 vessels carry without the project. One million to three million cy of dredged material would be beneficially reused for construction or levee reinforcement under a confirmed arrangement with a disposal site owner. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increasing the channel's side slope would result in a 10 percent increase in the sedimentation rate in the SRDWSC. Implementation of either action alternative would result in loss of delta smelt critical habitat. Construction would require the relocation of at least two gas pipelines. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). JF - EPA number: 110055, 566 pages, March 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 25 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Channels KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Landfills KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - San Joaquin River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126632?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SACRAMENTO+RIVER+DEEP+WATER+SHIP+CHANNEL%2C+CONTRA+COSTA%2C+SACRAMENTO%2C+SOLANO%2C+AND+YOLO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+1980+AND+THE+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+OF+MARCH+1986%29.&rft.title=SACRAMENTO+RIVER+DEEP+WATER+SHIP+CHANNEL%2C+CONTRA+COSTA%2C+SACRAMENTO%2C+SOLANO%2C+AND+YOLO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+1980+AND+THE+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+OF+MARCH+1986%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, San Francisco, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SACRAMENTO RIVER DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CONTRA COSTA, SACRAMENTO, SOLANO, AND YOLO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 1980 AND THE FINAL SUPPLEMENT OF MARCH 1986). [Part 10 of 30] T2 - SACRAMENTO RIVER DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CONTRA COSTA, SACRAMENTO, SOLANO, AND YOLO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 1980 AND THE FINAL SUPPLEMENT OF MARCH 1986). AN - 873126507; 14811-5_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening and selective widening of the Sacramento River Deep Water Ship Channel (SRDWSC), Contra Costa, Sacramento, Solano, and Yolo counties, California is proposed. The 43.4-mile-long SRDWSC is located in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and comprises a 17-mile section of the Sacramento River and the entire length of the 29-mile navigation channel. The upper 25 miles of the navigation channel is man-made, and the 8.4 miles of the navigation channel nearest the Port was previously dredged to 35 feet below mean lower low water MLLW. The Port of West Sacramento has historically served the agricultural industry, but has expanded its business to include additional commodities such as cement, biofuels, and wood pellets. Due to the current channel configuration, vessels laden with some cargos must light-load to safely navigate the SRDWSC. In addition, the existing widths of sections of the SRDWSC can make navigating to the Port difficult, particularly in inclement weather. This project was partially completed in 1990, but was suspended due to lack of funding. Two action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this supplemental draft EIS. The proposed project (Channel Deepening to -35 Feet MLLW and Selective Widening Alternative) would involve reinitiating the previously approved dredging from river miles 0.0 to 35.0 and completing the construction that was suspended. The total volume of dredged material is estimated to be 8.1 million cubic yards (cy) including a one-foot paid overdepth, and 10 million cy including a two-foot overdepth. Dredged material would be placed at 10 upland sites which would either permanently accommodate or temporarily stockpile the material for later beneficial reuse. Dredging would occur during project-specific work windows designed to reduce potential impact to sensitive aquatic species including salmonids, delta smelt, and longfin smelt. If six-month work windows are permitted, the proposed project could be constructed in four years. The -33 Feet MLLW Alternative would involve deepening the SRDWSC to a depth of 33 feet within the same dredging footprint as the proposed project and include maintenance dredging of the SRDWSC within the northernmost eight miles of the channel nearest the Port. The total dredged material volume for this alternative is anticipated to be 4 million cy with a one-foot overdepth or 5.2 million cy with a two-foot overdepth. Dredged material would be placed at seven sites which would either permanently accommodate or temporarily stockpile the material. Assuming construction occurs during six-month windows, the -33 Feet MLLW Alternative could be constructed in two to three years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A deeper and wider channel would improve economies of scale and overall navigation safety for commercial vessel traffic. With a 35-foot-deep channel or a 33-foot-deep channel, 100 or 114 vessels could carry the same amount of cargo as 143 vessels carry without the project. One million to three million cy of dredged material would be beneficially reused for construction or levee reinforcement under a confirmed arrangement with a disposal site owner. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increasing the channel's side slope would result in a 10 percent increase in the sedimentation rate in the SRDWSC. Implementation of either action alternative would result in loss of delta smelt critical habitat. Construction would require the relocation of at least two gas pipelines. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). JF - EPA number: 110055, 566 pages, March 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Channels KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Landfills KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - San Joaquin River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126507?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SACRAMENTO+RIVER+DEEP+WATER+SHIP+CHANNEL%2C+CONTRA+COSTA%2C+SACRAMENTO%2C+SOLANO%2C+AND+YOLO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+1980+AND+THE+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+OF+MARCH+1986%29.&rft.title=SACRAMENTO+RIVER+DEEP+WATER+SHIP+CHANNEL%2C+CONTRA+COSTA%2C+SACRAMENTO%2C+SOLANO%2C+AND+YOLO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+1980+AND+THE+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+OF+MARCH+1986%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, San Francisco, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SACRAMENTO RIVER DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CONTRA COSTA, SACRAMENTO, SOLANO, AND YOLO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 1980 AND THE FINAL SUPPLEMENT OF MARCH 1986). [Part 9 of 30] T2 - SACRAMENTO RIVER DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CONTRA COSTA, SACRAMENTO, SOLANO, AND YOLO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 1980 AND THE FINAL SUPPLEMENT OF MARCH 1986). AN - 873126503; 14811-5_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening and selective widening of the Sacramento River Deep Water Ship Channel (SRDWSC), Contra Costa, Sacramento, Solano, and Yolo counties, California is proposed. The 43.4-mile-long SRDWSC is located in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and comprises a 17-mile section of the Sacramento River and the entire length of the 29-mile navigation channel. The upper 25 miles of the navigation channel is man-made, and the 8.4 miles of the navigation channel nearest the Port was previously dredged to 35 feet below mean lower low water MLLW. The Port of West Sacramento has historically served the agricultural industry, but has expanded its business to include additional commodities such as cement, biofuels, and wood pellets. Due to the current channel configuration, vessels laden with some cargos must light-load to safely navigate the SRDWSC. In addition, the existing widths of sections of the SRDWSC can make navigating to the Port difficult, particularly in inclement weather. This project was partially completed in 1990, but was suspended due to lack of funding. Two action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this supplemental draft EIS. The proposed project (Channel Deepening to -35 Feet MLLW and Selective Widening Alternative) would involve reinitiating the previously approved dredging from river miles 0.0 to 35.0 and completing the construction that was suspended. The total volume of dredged material is estimated to be 8.1 million cubic yards (cy) including a one-foot paid overdepth, and 10 million cy including a two-foot overdepth. Dredged material would be placed at 10 upland sites which would either permanently accommodate or temporarily stockpile the material for later beneficial reuse. Dredging would occur during project-specific work windows designed to reduce potential impact to sensitive aquatic species including salmonids, delta smelt, and longfin smelt. If six-month work windows are permitted, the proposed project could be constructed in four years. The -33 Feet MLLW Alternative would involve deepening the SRDWSC to a depth of 33 feet within the same dredging footprint as the proposed project and include maintenance dredging of the SRDWSC within the northernmost eight miles of the channel nearest the Port. The total dredged material volume for this alternative is anticipated to be 4 million cy with a one-foot overdepth or 5.2 million cy with a two-foot overdepth. Dredged material would be placed at seven sites which would either permanently accommodate or temporarily stockpile the material. Assuming construction occurs during six-month windows, the -33 Feet MLLW Alternative could be constructed in two to three years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A deeper and wider channel would improve economies of scale and overall navigation safety for commercial vessel traffic. With a 35-foot-deep channel or a 33-foot-deep channel, 100 or 114 vessels could carry the same amount of cargo as 143 vessels carry without the project. One million to three million cy of dredged material would be beneficially reused for construction or levee reinforcement under a confirmed arrangement with a disposal site owner. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increasing the channel's side slope would result in a 10 percent increase in the sedimentation rate in the SRDWSC. Implementation of either action alternative would result in loss of delta smelt critical habitat. Construction would require the relocation of at least two gas pipelines. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). JF - EPA number: 110055, 566 pages, March 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Channels KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Landfills KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - San Joaquin River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126503?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SACRAMENTO+RIVER+DEEP+WATER+SHIP+CHANNEL%2C+CONTRA+COSTA%2C+SACRAMENTO%2C+SOLANO%2C+AND+YOLO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+1980+AND+THE+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+OF+MARCH+1986%29.&rft.title=SACRAMENTO+RIVER+DEEP+WATER+SHIP+CHANNEL%2C+CONTRA+COSTA%2C+SACRAMENTO%2C+SOLANO%2C+AND+YOLO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+1980+AND+THE+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+OF+MARCH+1986%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, San Francisco, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SACRAMENTO RIVER DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CONTRA COSTA, SACRAMENTO, SOLANO, AND YOLO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 1980 AND THE FINAL SUPPLEMENT OF MARCH 1986). [Part 8 of 30] T2 - SACRAMENTO RIVER DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CONTRA COSTA, SACRAMENTO, SOLANO, AND YOLO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 1980 AND THE FINAL SUPPLEMENT OF MARCH 1986). AN - 873126495; 14811-5_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening and selective widening of the Sacramento River Deep Water Ship Channel (SRDWSC), Contra Costa, Sacramento, Solano, and Yolo counties, California is proposed. The 43.4-mile-long SRDWSC is located in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and comprises a 17-mile section of the Sacramento River and the entire length of the 29-mile navigation channel. The upper 25 miles of the navigation channel is man-made, and the 8.4 miles of the navigation channel nearest the Port was previously dredged to 35 feet below mean lower low water MLLW. The Port of West Sacramento has historically served the agricultural industry, but has expanded its business to include additional commodities such as cement, biofuels, and wood pellets. Due to the current channel configuration, vessels laden with some cargos must light-load to safely navigate the SRDWSC. In addition, the existing widths of sections of the SRDWSC can make navigating to the Port difficult, particularly in inclement weather. This project was partially completed in 1990, but was suspended due to lack of funding. Two action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this supplemental draft EIS. The proposed project (Channel Deepening to -35 Feet MLLW and Selective Widening Alternative) would involve reinitiating the previously approved dredging from river miles 0.0 to 35.0 and completing the construction that was suspended. The total volume of dredged material is estimated to be 8.1 million cubic yards (cy) including a one-foot paid overdepth, and 10 million cy including a two-foot overdepth. Dredged material would be placed at 10 upland sites which would either permanently accommodate or temporarily stockpile the material for later beneficial reuse. Dredging would occur during project-specific work windows designed to reduce potential impact to sensitive aquatic species including salmonids, delta smelt, and longfin smelt. If six-month work windows are permitted, the proposed project could be constructed in four years. The -33 Feet MLLW Alternative would involve deepening the SRDWSC to a depth of 33 feet within the same dredging footprint as the proposed project and include maintenance dredging of the SRDWSC within the northernmost eight miles of the channel nearest the Port. The total dredged material volume for this alternative is anticipated to be 4 million cy with a one-foot overdepth or 5.2 million cy with a two-foot overdepth. Dredged material would be placed at seven sites which would either permanently accommodate or temporarily stockpile the material. Assuming construction occurs during six-month windows, the -33 Feet MLLW Alternative could be constructed in two to three years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A deeper and wider channel would improve economies of scale and overall navigation safety for commercial vessel traffic. With a 35-foot-deep channel or a 33-foot-deep channel, 100 or 114 vessels could carry the same amount of cargo as 143 vessels carry without the project. One million to three million cy of dredged material would be beneficially reused for construction or levee reinforcement under a confirmed arrangement with a disposal site owner. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increasing the channel's side slope would result in a 10 percent increase in the sedimentation rate in the SRDWSC. Implementation of either action alternative would result in loss of delta smelt critical habitat. Construction would require the relocation of at least two gas pipelines. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). JF - EPA number: 110055, 566 pages, March 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Channels KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Landfills KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - San Joaquin River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126495?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SACRAMENTO+RIVER+DEEP+WATER+SHIP+CHANNEL%2C+CONTRA+COSTA%2C+SACRAMENTO%2C+SOLANO%2C+AND+YOLO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+1980+AND+THE+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+OF+MARCH+1986%29.&rft.title=SACRAMENTO+RIVER+DEEP+WATER+SHIP+CHANNEL%2C+CONTRA+COSTA%2C+SACRAMENTO%2C+SOLANO%2C+AND+YOLO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+1980+AND+THE+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+OF+MARCH+1986%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, San Francisco, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SACRAMENTO RIVER DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CONTRA COSTA, SACRAMENTO, SOLANO, AND YOLO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 1980 AND THE FINAL SUPPLEMENT OF MARCH 1986). [Part 7 of 30] T2 - SACRAMENTO RIVER DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CONTRA COSTA, SACRAMENTO, SOLANO, AND YOLO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 1980 AND THE FINAL SUPPLEMENT OF MARCH 1986). AN - 873126488; 14811-5_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening and selective widening of the Sacramento River Deep Water Ship Channel (SRDWSC), Contra Costa, Sacramento, Solano, and Yolo counties, California is proposed. The 43.4-mile-long SRDWSC is located in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and comprises a 17-mile section of the Sacramento River and the entire length of the 29-mile navigation channel. The upper 25 miles of the navigation channel is man-made, and the 8.4 miles of the navigation channel nearest the Port was previously dredged to 35 feet below mean lower low water MLLW. The Port of West Sacramento has historically served the agricultural industry, but has expanded its business to include additional commodities such as cement, biofuels, and wood pellets. Due to the current channel configuration, vessels laden with some cargos must light-load to safely navigate the SRDWSC. In addition, the existing widths of sections of the SRDWSC can make navigating to the Port difficult, particularly in inclement weather. This project was partially completed in 1990, but was suspended due to lack of funding. Two action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this supplemental draft EIS. The proposed project (Channel Deepening to -35 Feet MLLW and Selective Widening Alternative) would involve reinitiating the previously approved dredging from river miles 0.0 to 35.0 and completing the construction that was suspended. The total volume of dredged material is estimated to be 8.1 million cubic yards (cy) including a one-foot paid overdepth, and 10 million cy including a two-foot overdepth. Dredged material would be placed at 10 upland sites which would either permanently accommodate or temporarily stockpile the material for later beneficial reuse. Dredging would occur during project-specific work windows designed to reduce potential impact to sensitive aquatic species including salmonids, delta smelt, and longfin smelt. If six-month work windows are permitted, the proposed project could be constructed in four years. The -33 Feet MLLW Alternative would involve deepening the SRDWSC to a depth of 33 feet within the same dredging footprint as the proposed project and include maintenance dredging of the SRDWSC within the northernmost eight miles of the channel nearest the Port. The total dredged material volume for this alternative is anticipated to be 4 million cy with a one-foot overdepth or 5.2 million cy with a two-foot overdepth. Dredged material would be placed at seven sites which would either permanently accommodate or temporarily stockpile the material. Assuming construction occurs during six-month windows, the -33 Feet MLLW Alternative could be constructed in two to three years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A deeper and wider channel would improve economies of scale and overall navigation safety for commercial vessel traffic. With a 35-foot-deep channel or a 33-foot-deep channel, 100 or 114 vessels could carry the same amount of cargo as 143 vessels carry without the project. One million to three million cy of dredged material would be beneficially reused for construction or levee reinforcement under a confirmed arrangement with a disposal site owner. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increasing the channel's side slope would result in a 10 percent increase in the sedimentation rate in the SRDWSC. Implementation of either action alternative would result in loss of delta smelt critical habitat. Construction would require the relocation of at least two gas pipelines. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). JF - EPA number: 110055, 566 pages, March 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Channels KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Landfills KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - San Joaquin River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126488?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SACRAMENTO+RIVER+DEEP+WATER+SHIP+CHANNEL%2C+CONTRA+COSTA%2C+SACRAMENTO%2C+SOLANO%2C+AND+YOLO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+1980+AND+THE+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+OF+MARCH+1986%29.&rft.title=SACRAMENTO+RIVER+DEEP+WATER+SHIP+CHANNEL%2C+CONTRA+COSTA%2C+SACRAMENTO%2C+SOLANO%2C+AND+YOLO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+1980+AND+THE+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+OF+MARCH+1986%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, San Francisco, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SACRAMENTO RIVER DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CONTRA COSTA, SACRAMENTO, SOLANO, AND YOLO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 1980 AND THE FINAL SUPPLEMENT OF MARCH 1986). [Part 6 of 30] T2 - SACRAMENTO RIVER DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CONTRA COSTA, SACRAMENTO, SOLANO, AND YOLO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 1980 AND THE FINAL SUPPLEMENT OF MARCH 1986). AN - 873126481; 14811-5_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening and selective widening of the Sacramento River Deep Water Ship Channel (SRDWSC), Contra Costa, Sacramento, Solano, and Yolo counties, California is proposed. The 43.4-mile-long SRDWSC is located in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and comprises a 17-mile section of the Sacramento River and the entire length of the 29-mile navigation channel. The upper 25 miles of the navigation channel is man-made, and the 8.4 miles of the navigation channel nearest the Port was previously dredged to 35 feet below mean lower low water MLLW. The Port of West Sacramento has historically served the agricultural industry, but has expanded its business to include additional commodities such as cement, biofuels, and wood pellets. Due to the current channel configuration, vessels laden with some cargos must light-load to safely navigate the SRDWSC. In addition, the existing widths of sections of the SRDWSC can make navigating to the Port difficult, particularly in inclement weather. This project was partially completed in 1990, but was suspended due to lack of funding. Two action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this supplemental draft EIS. The proposed project (Channel Deepening to -35 Feet MLLW and Selective Widening Alternative) would involve reinitiating the previously approved dredging from river miles 0.0 to 35.0 and completing the construction that was suspended. The total volume of dredged material is estimated to be 8.1 million cubic yards (cy) including a one-foot paid overdepth, and 10 million cy including a two-foot overdepth. Dredged material would be placed at 10 upland sites which would either permanently accommodate or temporarily stockpile the material for later beneficial reuse. Dredging would occur during project-specific work windows designed to reduce potential impact to sensitive aquatic species including salmonids, delta smelt, and longfin smelt. If six-month work windows are permitted, the proposed project could be constructed in four years. The -33 Feet MLLW Alternative would involve deepening the SRDWSC to a depth of 33 feet within the same dredging footprint as the proposed project and include maintenance dredging of the SRDWSC within the northernmost eight miles of the channel nearest the Port. The total dredged material volume for this alternative is anticipated to be 4 million cy with a one-foot overdepth or 5.2 million cy with a two-foot overdepth. Dredged material would be placed at seven sites which would either permanently accommodate or temporarily stockpile the material. Assuming construction occurs during six-month windows, the -33 Feet MLLW Alternative could be constructed in two to three years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A deeper and wider channel would improve economies of scale and overall navigation safety for commercial vessel traffic. With a 35-foot-deep channel or a 33-foot-deep channel, 100 or 114 vessels could carry the same amount of cargo as 143 vessels carry without the project. One million to three million cy of dredged material would be beneficially reused for construction or levee reinforcement under a confirmed arrangement with a disposal site owner. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increasing the channel's side slope would result in a 10 percent increase in the sedimentation rate in the SRDWSC. Implementation of either action alternative would result in loss of delta smelt critical habitat. Construction would require the relocation of at least two gas pipelines. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). JF - EPA number: 110055, 566 pages, March 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Channels KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Landfills KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - San Joaquin River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126481?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SACRAMENTO+RIVER+DEEP+WATER+SHIP+CHANNEL%2C+CONTRA+COSTA%2C+SACRAMENTO%2C+SOLANO%2C+AND+YOLO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+1980+AND+THE+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+OF+MARCH+1986%29.&rft.title=SACRAMENTO+RIVER+DEEP+WATER+SHIP+CHANNEL%2C+CONTRA+COSTA%2C+SACRAMENTO%2C+SOLANO%2C+AND+YOLO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+1980+AND+THE+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+OF+MARCH+1986%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, San Francisco, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SACRAMENTO RIVER DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CONTRA COSTA, SACRAMENTO, SOLANO, AND YOLO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 1980 AND THE FINAL SUPPLEMENT OF MARCH 1986). [Part 5 of 30] T2 - SACRAMENTO RIVER DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CONTRA COSTA, SACRAMENTO, SOLANO, AND YOLO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 1980 AND THE FINAL SUPPLEMENT OF MARCH 1986). AN - 873126438; 14811-5_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening and selective widening of the Sacramento River Deep Water Ship Channel (SRDWSC), Contra Costa, Sacramento, Solano, and Yolo counties, California is proposed. The 43.4-mile-long SRDWSC is located in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and comprises a 17-mile section of the Sacramento River and the entire length of the 29-mile navigation channel. The upper 25 miles of the navigation channel is man-made, and the 8.4 miles of the navigation channel nearest the Port was previously dredged to 35 feet below mean lower low water MLLW. The Port of West Sacramento has historically served the agricultural industry, but has expanded its business to include additional commodities such as cement, biofuels, and wood pellets. Due to the current channel configuration, vessels laden with some cargos must light-load to safely navigate the SRDWSC. In addition, the existing widths of sections of the SRDWSC can make navigating to the Port difficult, particularly in inclement weather. This project was partially completed in 1990, but was suspended due to lack of funding. Two action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this supplemental draft EIS. The proposed project (Channel Deepening to -35 Feet MLLW and Selective Widening Alternative) would involve reinitiating the previously approved dredging from river miles 0.0 to 35.0 and completing the construction that was suspended. The total volume of dredged material is estimated to be 8.1 million cubic yards (cy) including a one-foot paid overdepth, and 10 million cy including a two-foot overdepth. Dredged material would be placed at 10 upland sites which would either permanently accommodate or temporarily stockpile the material for later beneficial reuse. Dredging would occur during project-specific work windows designed to reduce potential impact to sensitive aquatic species including salmonids, delta smelt, and longfin smelt. If six-month work windows are permitted, the proposed project could be constructed in four years. The -33 Feet MLLW Alternative would involve deepening the SRDWSC to a depth of 33 feet within the same dredging footprint as the proposed project and include maintenance dredging of the SRDWSC within the northernmost eight miles of the channel nearest the Port. The total dredged material volume for this alternative is anticipated to be 4 million cy with a one-foot overdepth or 5.2 million cy with a two-foot overdepth. Dredged material would be placed at seven sites which would either permanently accommodate or temporarily stockpile the material. Assuming construction occurs during six-month windows, the -33 Feet MLLW Alternative could be constructed in two to three years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A deeper and wider channel would improve economies of scale and overall navigation safety for commercial vessel traffic. With a 35-foot-deep channel or a 33-foot-deep channel, 100 or 114 vessels could carry the same amount of cargo as 143 vessels carry without the project. One million to three million cy of dredged material would be beneficially reused for construction or levee reinforcement under a confirmed arrangement with a disposal site owner. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increasing the channel's side slope would result in a 10 percent increase in the sedimentation rate in the SRDWSC. Implementation of either action alternative would result in loss of delta smelt critical habitat. Construction would require the relocation of at least two gas pipelines. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). JF - EPA number: 110055, 566 pages, March 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Channels KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Landfills KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - San Joaquin River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126438?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SACRAMENTO+RIVER+DEEP+WATER+SHIP+CHANNEL%2C+CONTRA+COSTA%2C+SACRAMENTO%2C+SOLANO%2C+AND+YOLO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+1980+AND+THE+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+OF+MARCH+1986%29.&rft.title=SACRAMENTO+RIVER+DEEP+WATER+SHIP+CHANNEL%2C+CONTRA+COSTA%2C+SACRAMENTO%2C+SOLANO%2C+AND+YOLO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+1980+AND+THE+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+OF+MARCH+1986%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, San Francisco, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SACRAMENTO RIVER DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CONTRA COSTA, SACRAMENTO, SOLANO, AND YOLO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 1980 AND THE FINAL SUPPLEMENT OF MARCH 1986). AN - 860047174; 14811 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening and selective widening of the Sacramento River Deep Water Ship Channel (SRDWSC), Contra Costa, Sacramento, Solano, and Yolo counties, California is proposed. The 43.4-mile-long SRDWSC is located in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and comprises a 17-mile section of the Sacramento River and the entire length of the 29-mile navigation channel. The upper 25 miles of the navigation channel is man-made, and the 8.4 miles of the navigation channel nearest the Port was previously dredged to 35 feet below mean lower low water MLLW. The Port of West Sacramento has historically served the agricultural industry, but has expanded its business to include additional commodities such as cement, biofuels, and wood pellets. Due to the current channel configuration, vessels laden with some cargos must light-load to safely navigate the SRDWSC. In addition, the existing widths of sections of the SRDWSC can make navigating to the Port difficult, particularly in inclement weather. This project was partially completed in 1990, but was suspended due to lack of funding. Two action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this supplemental draft EIS. The proposed project (Channel Deepening to -35 Feet MLLW and Selective Widening Alternative) would involve reinitiating the previously approved dredging from river miles 0.0 to 35.0 and completing the construction that was suspended. The total volume of dredged material is estimated to be 8.1 million cubic yards (cy) including a one-foot paid overdepth, and 10 million cy including a two-foot overdepth. Dredged material would be placed at 10 upland sites which would either permanently accommodate or temporarily stockpile the material for later beneficial reuse. Dredging would occur during project-specific work windows designed to reduce potential impact to sensitive aquatic species including salmonids, delta smelt, and longfin smelt. If six-month work windows are permitted, the proposed project could be constructed in four years. The -33 Feet MLLW Alternative would involve deepening the SRDWSC to a depth of 33 feet within the same dredging footprint as the proposed project and include maintenance dredging of the SRDWSC within the northernmost eight miles of the channel nearest the Port. The total dredged material volume for this alternative is anticipated to be 4 million cy with a one-foot overdepth or 5.2 million cy with a two-foot overdepth. Dredged material would be placed at seven sites which would either permanently accommodate or temporarily stockpile the material. Assuming construction occurs during six-month windows, the -33 Feet MLLW Alternative could be constructed in two to three years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A deeper and wider channel would improve economies of scale and overall navigation safety for commercial vessel traffic. With a 35-foot-deep channel or a 33-foot-deep channel, 100 or 114 vessels could carry the same amount of cargo as 143 vessels carry without the project. One million to three million cy of dredged material would be beneficially reused for construction or levee reinforcement under a confirmed arrangement with a disposal site owner. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increasing the channel's side slope would result in a 10 percent increase in the sedimentation rate in the SRDWSC. Implementation of either action alternative would result in loss of delta smelt critical habitat. Construction would require the relocation of at least two gas pipelines. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). JF - EPA number: 110055, 566 pages, March 4, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Channels KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Landfills KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - San Joaquin River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/860047174?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SACRAMENTO+RIVER+DEEP+WATER+SHIP+CHANNEL%2C+CONTRA+COSTA%2C+SACRAMENTO%2C+SOLANO%2C+AND+YOLO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+1980+AND+THE+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+OF+MARCH+1986%29.&rft.title=SACRAMENTO+RIVER+DEEP+WATER+SHIP+CHANNEL%2C+CONTRA+COSTA%2C+SACRAMENTO%2C+SOLANO%2C+AND+YOLO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+1980+AND+THE+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+OF+MARCH+1986%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, San Francisco, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEW ORLEANS TO VENICE (NOV), LOUISIANA, HURRICANE RISK REDUCTION PROJECT, INCORPORATION OF NON-FEDERAL LEVEES FROM OAKVILLE TO ST. JUDE, PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 860047171; 14818 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement or modification of 32 miles of non-federal levee (NFL) system for incorporation into the New Orleans to Venice (NOV) federal project and the construction from ground level of two miles of earthen back levees in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana are proposed. The project area is located 15 miles south of New Orleans on the west bank of the Mississippi River between Oakville and St. Jude. Plaquemines Parish has long, narrow strips of protected land on both sides of the Mississippi River between New Orleans and the Gulf of Mexico. Hurricane and flood protection is currently provided by a system of federal levees along the river and federal and non-federal back levees which border the Gulf of Mexico's coastal wetlands and protect the land between the gulf and river from tropical storm surges. The distance between the gulf-side back levees and the river varies, but is usually less than one mile. The NFL, which is currently maintained by Plaquemines Parish, received extensive damage during Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and following these events was authorized for incorporation into the NOV federal project. Key issues identified during scoping include the level of risk reduction, levee alignment, project cost and duration, and impacts to wetlands. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in detail in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action and selected alternative (Alternative B), existing levee sections would be raised to a two percent design elevation, or approximately a 50-year level of risk reduction (LORR), and all five sections of the NFL would be incorporated into the federal hurricane and storm protection system by employing alignment alternatives which closely follow the existing levee alignment. The existing levee elevation would increase by three to four feet, National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NVGD), in the northern portion of the project area and by eight feet, NVGD, in the southern portion. Alternative B2, which is the locally preferred alternative, would be identical to the proposed action except that higher levee grades would be employed in Section 1. Under Alternative C, the levees in Sections 1 through 3 would be raised to a two percent LORR and incorporated into the federal system; and at the end of Section 3, the levee would be designed to turn 90 degrees to the east to tie in to the existing Mississippi River levee. The estimated fully funded cost of the proposed action, including mitigation, is $456 million. Levee replacement and modification would be conducted over a three to five year period subject to weather and funding. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide enhanced storm surge protection and protect evacuation routes, thus reducing risk to public safety and damage from catastrophic storm inundation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Use of proposed government-furnished borrow areas could impact a total of 908.6 acres of farmland. Direct impacts to 46 acres of bottomland hardwood habitat, 24.9 acres of swamp habitat, 10.4 acres of fresh marsh, 16.1 acres of brackish marsh, and 144.9 acres of wetland pasture would require mitigation. Construction activities would cause temporary disruptions to traffic and generate noise and dust. Temporarily increased sediment loads would result in minor increases in suspended solids and turbidity in local waterways. LEGAL MANDATES: Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-234). JF - EPA number: 110062, 669 pages, March 4, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Land Use KW - Borrow Pits KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dikes KW - Dredging KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Protection KW - Hurricane Readiness Plans KW - Hurricanes KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi River KW - Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2006, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/860047171?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEW+ORLEANS+TO+VENICE+%28NOV%29%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+HURRICANE+RISK+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+INCORPORATION+OF+NON-FEDERAL+LEVEES+FROM+OAKVILLE+TO+ST.+JUDE%2C+PLAQUEMINES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=NEW+ORLEANS+TO+VENICE+%28NOV%29%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+HURRICANE+RISK+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+INCORPORATION+OF+NON-FEDERAL+LEVEES+FROM+OAKVILLE+TO+ST.+JUDE%2C+PLAQUEMINES+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; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EVERGLADES RESTORATION TRANSITION PLAN, BROWARD AND MIAMI-DADE COUNTIES, FLORIDA. AN - 860047168; 14813 AB - PURPOSE: The modification of 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 while maintaining project purposes. The Everglades Restoration Transition Plan (ERTP) will 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 Everglades National Park (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. In early 2009, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) identified the need for reexamination of IOP water management operations due to endangered species concerns within Water Conservation Area 3A (WCA-3A) and the fact that the 2006 FWS IOP Biological Opinion was set to expire on November 17, 2010. Consultations led to the conclusion that the IOP is no longer a viable option for water management within WCA-3A and the South Dade Conveyance System (SDCS). WCA-3A supports extensive and relatively intact 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 the tribe members 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 which would continue the current operating regime (IOP), are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 9E1, which is the tentatively selected plan, a revised WCA-3A interim regulation schedule would allow for the ability to make maximum releases earlier while providing a greater amount of time for transitioning 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, restoring vegetation within the area and directly benefiting snail kite and their primary food source, the apple snail. Protective levels for the CSSS would be maintained and periodic scientist calls would take advantage of the best science currently available to enable real-time water management decisions. Implementation of the tentatively selected 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 SDCS, but agricultural impacts would be negligible. Further fluctuations created through controlled staging of the water could adversely impact cultural resources. Minor impacts to airboat access to some areas of WCA-3A during dry periods could occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110057, Volume1--300 pages, Volume 2 (Appendices)--336 pages, Volume 3 (Appendices)--1,046 pages, March 4, 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 - 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/860047168?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-04&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 - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SABINE-NECHES WATERWAY CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, SOUTHEAST TEXAS AND SOUTHWEST LOUISIANA. AN - 16386688; 14815 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the Sabine-Neches Waterway (SNWW), including modifications of the channels serving the ports of Beaumont, Port Arthur, and Orange, Texas, are proposed. The SNWW is located on the upper Texas Gulf Coast in Jefferson and Orange counties, Texas and Cameron and Calcasieu parishes, Louisiana. The 64-mile-long channel begins offshore, follows the west side of Sabine Lake and terminates just upstream of the Beaumont turning basin on the Neches River. Sixty percent of the SNWW tonnage total is comprised of deep draft movements, the vast majority of which are shipments of crude petroleum or petroleum/chemical products in and out of 20 waterfront facilities in Port Arthur and 27 facilities in Beaumont. SNWW's crude petroleum imports represent four percent of the US total. The existing SNWW navigation channel is congested and its 40-foot project depth was designed for smaller vessels than are being used today. A No Action Alternative and six structural alternatives are evaluated in detail in this final EIS. Alternatives A through F would deepen the SNWW to 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, or 50 feet, respectively. The preferred alternative (Alternative D) would: 1) deepen the SNWW to Beaumont to 48 feet; 2) extend the Sabine Bank Channel an additional 13.2 miles into the Gulf of Mexico; 3) taper the Sabine Bank Channel from 800 feet wide to 700 feet wide through the end of the Sabine Bank Channel extension; 4) deepen and widen Taylor Bayou channels and turning basins; and 5) construct three new anchorage/turning basins on the Neches River. Dredged material produced by construction and during maintenance dredging over the 50-year period of analysis would be managed in accordance with a plan that includes 16 existing upland placement areas, four existing and four new ocean dredged material disposal sites (ODMDSs), and beneficial use features. Construction and maintenance dredging are projected to yield 98 million cubic yards and 650 million cubic yards of material, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the channel improvement project would improve the transportation efficiency of the SNWW's deep-draft navigation system and support industry at critical ports. Dredged material would be used beneficially to restore wetlands within the study area's 480 square miles of sensitive coastal habitats. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging activities, new ODMDSs, and marsh restoration would result in temporary impacts to water quality and benthic organisms and habitat. A small increase in salinity over 35,600 acres of fresh marsh and 804 acres of swamps in Texas and Louisiana and over large areas of estuarine marsh habitat (over 22,200 acres in Texas and 153,000 acres in Louisiana) would reduce biological productivity. An upland confined placement area would convert 86 acres of wetlands. New work dredging would likely adversely affect, but not likely jeopardize the continued existence of, loggerhead, Kemp's ridley, and green sea turtles. Impacts to shoreline birds and their habitat could result from the placement of maintenance material on the Gulf shoreline. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1412 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0176D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110059, Volume I: Final Feasibility Report--743 pages and maps, Volume II: Final EIS--552 pages, Volumes III and IV: Appendices--1,400 pages, March 4, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Fish KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Navigation KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Salinity KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Shores KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Neches River KW - Texas KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 102 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16386688?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SABINE-NECHES+WATERWAY+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SOUTHEAST+TEXAS+AND+SOUTHWEST+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=SABINE-NECHES+WATERWAY+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SOUTHEAST+TEXAS+AND+SOUTHWEST+LOUISIANA.&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 - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH SECOND STREET CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, FROM INTERSTATE 40 AT NORTH SECOND STREET TO THE INTERSECTION OF U.S. 51/SR-3/WHITNEY AVENUE IN MEMPHIS, SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE. AN - 15236699; 14821 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the North Second Street corridor between neighborhoods north of Memphis, Tennessee and downtown and the central business district is proposed. U.S. 51/SR-3, a four-lane route located one mile east of the Mississippi River and one mile west of Interstate 40 (I-40), is the primary north-south arterial corridor in north Memphis and it frequently experiences congestion during peak travel times. North Second Street is the most logical corridor between U.S. 51/SR-3 and the Mississippi River to provide secondary access. Most of North Second Street currently has two travel lanes and is functionally classified as an urban principal arterial on the National Highway System. The street does not meet current design standards in several locations and does not have the capacity to meet future traffic projections. The proposed action and a No Build Alternative are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the build alternative, North Second and North Third streets would be converted from two-way streets into a one-way pair from I-40 to Chelsea Avenue. North Second would be one-way south and North Third would be one-way north. Both would have three traffic lanes from I-40 to Auction Avenue at which point they would transition to two traffic lanes before continuing to Chelsea Avenue. All construction along this first segment would be within existing right-of-way. Beginning at Chelsea Avenue, the alignments would diverge until rejoining just north of Henry Avenue to form a two directional four-lane roadway that would extend along existing North Second Street to the south side of the Wolf River. A new two-lane bridge would be constructed parallel to the existing two-lane bridge. The proposed alignment would extend north on new location and tie into existing Whitney Avenue. This rural segment would consist of two traffic lanes in each direction separated by a 30-foot median with 10-foot shoulders. The final segment would extend along Whitney Avenue to the end of the project at the intersection of Whitney and U.S. 51/SR-3. Total project costs are estimated at $92.9 million in 2015 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The improvements would provide viable secondary access into the central business district of Memphis, relieve traffic congestion and reduce delays on U.S. 51/Danny Thomas Boulevard and I-40, and enhance the ongoing redevelopment of the Uptown neighborhood and other older residential areas. Construction would provide sidewalks and bicycle lanes and access to the proposed Wolf River Greenway. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would cause temporary traffic delays, noise, and dust. New right-of-way would convert 11.3 acres of forested habitat and 15 acres of farmland, cross streams, and fill an estimated seven acres of wetlands in the Wolf River floodplain. Thirteen households and 11 businesses along the corridor would be displaced. Two properties which are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places would be impacted. Building demolition could encounter friable asbestos. 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: 110065, 327 pages, March 4, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Central Business Districts KW - Demolition KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Transportation KW - Urban Renewal KW - Wetlands KW - Tennessee KW - Wolf River 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/15236699?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+SECOND+STREET+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+FROM+INTERSTATE+40+AT+NORTH+SECOND+STREET+TO+THE+INTERSECTION+OF+U.S.+51%2FSR-3%2FWHITNEY+AVENUE+IN+MEMPHIS%2C+SHELBY+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=NORTH+SECOND+STREET+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+FROM+INTERSTATE+40+AT+NORTH+SECOND+STREET+TO+THE+INTERSECTION+OF+U.S.+51%2FSR-3%2FWHITNEY+AVENUE+IN+MEMPHIS%2C+SHELBY+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 - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Seismic Deformation Analysis for Risk Assessment of Embankment Dams AN - 907156269; 14782028 AB - Several failure modes, usually included in the risk analysis of an embankment dam, are related to seismic loading and include: overtopping due to embankment settlement, above crest erosion, seepage erosion through transverse cracks, and piping into a rupture of the outlet works system. All these failure modes are aggravated when the foundation soil is potentially liquefiable under possible earthquake loading. Success Dam and the Auxiliary Dam of the Isabella Lake, both in California have recently been evaluated for seismic loading and seismic risk. The dams are founded on liquefiable alluvium deposits and in one case the site has a seismically active fault that transects the dam. Seismic deformation analyses for the risk assessment were performed using the computer program FLAC and the liquefaction model UBCSAND (developed at the University of British Columbia, Canada and modified for better modeling of the liquefiable dam foundations by Dr. Michael Beaty). Correlation relationships were determined between the intensity of shaking (defined by the peak ground acceleration) and embankment deformations, in particular the crest settlement and the horizontal displacement of the slopes. The results were presented in a format adequate for easy implementation into the risk evaluation model. JF - Reston, VA: ASCE Proceedings of the Geo-Frontiers 2011 conference, March 13-16, 2011, Dallas, Texas, d 20110000 AU - Perlea, V G AU - Serafini, D C AU - Salah-Mars, S AU - Makdisi, F I AD - US Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District, 1325 J Street, Sacramento, CA 94814. Y1 - 2011/03// PY - 2011 DA - March 2011 SP - 3186 EP - 3196 PB - American Society of Civil Engineers KW - Aqualine Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Risk Abstracts KW - Seismic effects KW - Deformation KW - Risk management KW - Embankment dams KW - Damsites KW - Risk assessment KW - Earthquakes KW - embankments KW - Soil erosion KW - Alluvial deposits KW - Risks KW - Lakes KW - Assessments KW - Dams KW - Soils KW - Cracks KW - USA, California KW - Seepages KW - Overtopping KW - Canada, British Columbia KW - Embankments KW - USA, Texas, Dallas KW - deformation KW - Model Studies KW - Risk KW - Erosion KW - Seismic activity KW - R2 23030:Natural hazards KW - AQ 00006:Sewage KW - SW 5080:Evaluation, processing and publication KW - Q2 09124:Coastal zone management UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/907156269?accountid=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=Reston%2C+VA%3A+ASCE+Proceedings+of+the+Geo-Frontiers+2011+conference%2C+March+13-16%2C+2011%2C+Dallas%2C+Texas+%7Cd+20110000&rft.atitle=Seismic+Deformation+Analysis+for+Risk+Assessment+of+Embankment+Dams&rft.au=Perlea%2C+V+G%3BSerafini%2C+D+C%3BSalah-Mars%2C+S%3BMakdisi%2C+F+I&rft.aulast=Perlea&rft.aufirst=V&rft.date=2011-03-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=3186&rft.isbn=9780784411650&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Reston%2C+VA%3A+ASCE+Proceedings+of+the+Geo-Frontiers+2011+conference%2C+March+13-16%2C+2011%2C+Dallas%2C+Texas+%7Cd+20110000&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/10.1061%2F41165%28397%29326 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - Last updated - 2017-02-15 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Dams; Embankments; Soils; Soil erosion; Seepages; Alluvial deposits; Risks; Overtopping; Deformation; Earthquakes; Risk assessment; embankments; Lakes; Erosion; Seismic activity; deformation; Damsites; Risk; Assessments; Cracks; Model Studies; Canada, British Columbia; USA, Texas, Dallas; USA, California DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/41165(397)326 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Constructing a sediment budget for the Mississippi-Atchafalaya River in Louisiana in support of coastal restoration AN - 898178710; 2011-087524 AB - A team of Federal, State of Louisiana, and academic scientists have been tasked by the LCA Science and Technology Program to provide a comprehensive suspended sediment budget for the lower Mississippi-Atchafalaya River in Louisiana. While catchment sediment budgets have been done for the Mississippi in the past, the present effort is designed to examine the sediment transport cycle in the tidal and estuarine section of the river, and the impact of more than a dozen man-made and natural water exits downriver of the Old River Control split with the Atchafalaya. An understanding of the magnitude, timing and character of suspended sediment pass through the lower river annually is critical to planning future sediment diversions in support of coastal restoration in the delta. The focus of the study is flood years 2008-2010, to avoid issues of a documented longer-term decline in sediment loads, and to take advantage of the installation and operation of several new monitoring stations. The budget is constructed using a backbone of daily USGS and USACE monitoring stations, supplemented with boat-based, project-specific studies. Preliminary conclusions are that 1) 30-50% of the sediment in the main river below Old River exits the river prior to Head of Passes, 2) the timing of suspended load is strongly impacted in the tidal reach below Baton Rouge by an annual bed storage-resuspension cycle and 3) traditional methods of using sediment ratings curves to measure annual suspended throughput are underestimating true load during the rising limb and overestimating during the falling limb of discharge pulses. JF - Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America AU - Allison, Mead A AU - Demas, Charles AU - Kleiss, Barbara AU - Little, Charles AU - Meselhe, Ehab A AU - Powell, Nancy AU - Pratt, Thad AU - Vosburg, Brian AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2011/03// PY - 2011 DA - March 2011 SP - 46 PB - Geological Society of America (GSA), Boulder, CO VL - 43 IS - 3 SN - 0016-7592, 0016-7592 KW - United States KW - bedload KW - Atchafalaya River KW - sediment transport KW - stream sediments KW - sedimentation KW - suspended materials KW - fluvial sedimentation KW - variations KW - transport KW - mass balance KW - sediments KW - Mississippi River KW - Louisiana KW - discharge KW - fluvial environment KW - 06A:Sedimentary petrology KW - 21:Hydrogeology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898178710?accountid=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=Constructing+a+sediment+budget+for+the+Mississippi-Atchafalaya+River+in+Louisiana+in+support+of+coastal+restoration&rft.au=Allison%2C+Mead+A%3BDemas%2C+Charles%3BKleiss%2C+Barbara%3BLittle%2C+Charles%3BMeselhe%2C+Ehab+A%3BPowell%2C+Nancy%3BPratt%2C+Thad%3BVosburg%2C+Brian%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Allison&rft.aufirst=Mead&rft.date=2011-03-01&rft.volume=43&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=46&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Abstracts+with+Programs+-+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.issn=00167592&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - Geological Society of America, South-Central Section, 45th annual meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data supplied by the Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO, United States N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - GAAPBC N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Atchafalaya River; bedload; discharge; fluvial environment; fluvial sedimentation; Louisiana; mass balance; Mississippi River; sediment transport; sedimentation; sediments; stream sediments; suspended materials; transport; United States; variations ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Measuring bedload transport and suspended load on the Mississippi River at the Old River Complex AN - 898178687; 2011-087522 AB - Bedload transport on the Mississippi River was computed using the ISSDOTv2 method for data collected at the Old River Complex. This method uses difference plots of time sequenced bathymetric data for the computation of bedload transport. Bathymetric data were collected at several different sites on the main stem Mississippi River, the outflow channel, the Red River, and the Atchafalaya River, in February 2010. At each site multiple bathymetric swaths, temporally sequential and laterally adjacent across the river, were surveyed. Each survey trip captured two or more time varying bathymetries for each swath. Multiple difference plots were created from these swaths and the ISSDOTv2 computational method was then applied. The output for a given difference plot is a bedload transport value for the swath in tons per day. The values for each swath can be summed to provide the total bedload transport at a section. Flow and suspended sediment measurements were obtained concurrently with the bathymetry. The results of the bedload measurements are combined with the flow and suspended sediment measurements to provide insight into the sedimentation dynamics of the Old River Complex. JF - Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America AU - Abraham, David AU - McAlpin, Tate AU - Pratt, Thad AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2011/03// PY - 2011 DA - March 2011 SP - 46 PB - Geological Society of America (GSA), Boulder, CO VL - 43 IS - 3 SN - 0016-7592, 0016-7592 KW - United States KW - methods KW - bedload KW - sediment transport KW - sedimentation KW - suspended materials KW - fluvial sedimentation KW - measurement KW - transport KW - Old River Complex KW - ISSDOT KW - Mississippi River KW - Integrated Section Surface Difference Over Time KW - 06A:Sedimentary petrology KW - 21:Hydrogeology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898178687?accountid=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=Measuring+bedload+transport+and+suspended+load+on+the+Mississippi+River+at+the+Old+River+Complex&rft.au=Abraham%2C+David%3BMcAlpin%2C+Tate%3BPratt%2C+Thad%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Abraham&rft.aufirst=David&rft.date=2011-03-01&rft.volume=43&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=46&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Abstracts+with+Programs+-+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.issn=00167592&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - Geological Society of America, South-Central Section, 45th annual meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data supplied by the Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO, United States N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - GAAPBC N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - bedload; fluvial sedimentation; Integrated Section Surface Difference Over Time; ISSDOT; measurement; methods; Mississippi River; Old River Complex; sediment transport; sedimentation; suspended materials; transport; United States ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Suspend load calculations made from calibrating ADCP velocity and backscatter measurements AN - 898178679; 2011-087521 AB - Sediment transport surveys along the Mississippi River try determine the integrated transport of water and sediments in the main stem of the river and through controlled/non controlled diversions. The goal of the integrated surveys is to achieve an understanding of the suspended and bed-load transport of sand and fines (silt and clay) Integrated surveys are needed to ground-truth 1D and multidimensional modeling efforts to determine the extent to which the diversion is influencing shoaling in adjacent navigation channels and to determine sediment fluxes into the receiving basins. The results of these types of surveys and techniques will be presented to show the value of these methods and technologies. Calibrating the ADCP, Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler, currents and acoustic backscatter into an integrated measurement has enormous scientific value for design and system management. The techniques of collection, calibration and analysis will be presented. JF - Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America AU - Pratt, Thad AU - Perkey, David AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2011/03// PY - 2011 DA - March 2011 SP - 46 PB - Geological Society of America (GSA), Boulder, CO VL - 43 IS - 3 SN - 0016-7592, 0016-7592 KW - United States KW - sediment transport KW - sedimentation KW - geophysical methods KW - suspended materials KW - calibration KW - fluvial sedimentation KW - measurement KW - acoustical methods KW - transport KW - velocity KW - Mississippi River KW - acoustic Doppler current profiler data KW - backscattering KW - 21:Hydrogeology KW - 20:Applied geophysics UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898178679?accountid=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=Suspend+load+calculations+made+from+calibrating+ADCP+velocity+and+backscatter+measurements&rft.au=Pratt%2C+Thad%3BPerkey%2C+David%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Pratt&rft.aufirst=Thad&rft.date=2011-03-01&rft.volume=43&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=46&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Abstracts+with+Programs+-+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.issn=00167592&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - Geological Society of America, South-Central Section, 45th annual meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data supplied by the Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO, United States N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - GAAPBC N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - acoustic Doppler current profiler data; acoustical methods; backscattering; calibration; fluvial sedimentation; geophysical methods; measurement; Mississippi River; sediment transport; sedimentation; suspended materials; transport; United States; velocity ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Observations of Parturition in Rafinesque's Big-Eared Bats (Corynorhinus rafinesquii) Beneath a Concrete Bridge AN - 893288441; 14796418 AB - We report on observations of parturition and maternal behavior of Corynorhinus rafinesquii (Rafinesque's Big-eared Bat) at a bridge in west-central Mississippi. Rafinesque's Big-eared Bats formed a maternity colony beneath the bridge in March, and parturition occurred from late May to early June. On 28 May 2004, a female Rafinesque's Big-eared Bat was observed giving birth in the breech position, which has not been previously reported for the species. On the same day, another adult female and her pup were found struggling on the ground due to entanglement of the umbilical cord around the mother's wing, and a third female was observed biting her pup. While important data were obtained during our observations, we emphasize the necessity of using extreme care when conducting repeated surveys at maternity roost sites. JF - Southeastern Naturalist AU - Wolters, Monica S AU - Martin, Chester O Y1 - 2011/03// PY - 2011 DA - Mar 2011 SP - 178 EP - 180 PB - Humboldt Field Research Institute, PO Box 9 Steuben ME 04680-0009 USA VL - 10 IS - 1 SN - 1528-7092, 1528-7092 KW - Ecology Abstracts KW - Corynorhinus rafinesquii KW - Birth KW - Colonies KW - Data processing KW - Biting KW - Parturition KW - Wings KW - Maternal behavior KW - Umbilical cord KW - Roosts KW - D 04040:Ecosystem and Ecology Studies UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/893288441?accountid=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=Southeastern+Naturalist&rft.atitle=Observations+of+Parturition+in+Rafinesque%27s+Big-Eared+Bats+%28Corynorhinus+rafinesquii%29+Beneath+a+Concrete+Bridge&rft.au=Wolters%2C+Monica+S%3BMartin%2C+Chester+O&rft.aulast=Wolters&rft.aufirst=Monica&rft.date=2011-03-01&rft.volume=10&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=178&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Southeastern+Naturalist&rft.issn=15287092&rft_id=info:doi/10.1656%2F058.010.0115 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - Number of references - 2 N1 - Last updated - 2014-04-17 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Birth; Colonies; Data processing; Biting; Wings; Parturition; Maternal behavior; Umbilical cord; Roosts; Corynorhinus rafinesquii DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1656/058.010.0115 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Post-Katrina Land-Cover, Elevation, and Volume Change Assessment along the South Shore of Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana, U.S.A. AN - 893265207; 14796568 AB - Advances in remote-sensing technology have led to its increased use for posthurricane disaster response and assessment; however, the use of the technology is underutilized in the recovery phase of the disaster management cycle. This study illustrates an example of a postdisaster recovery assessment by detecting coastal land cover, elevation, and volume changes using 3 years of post-Katrina hyperspectral and light detection and ranging data collected along the south shore of Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana. Digital elevation models and basic land-cover classifications were generated for a 34-km2 study area for 2005, 2006, and 2007. A change detection method was used to assess postdisaster land-cover, elevation, and volume changes. Results showed that the vegetation classes had area increases, whereas bare ground/roads and structures classes had area decreases. Overall estimated volume changes included a net volume decrease of 1.6 x 10 super(6) m super(3) in 2005 to 2006 and a net volume decrease of 2.1 x 10 super(6) m super(3) in 2006 to 2007 within the study area. More specifically, low vegetation and bare ground/roads classes had net volume increases, whereas medium and tall vegetation and structures classes had net volume decreases. These changes in land cover, elevation, and volume illustrate some of the major physical impacts of the disaster and ensuing recovery. This study demonstrates an innovative image fusion approach to assess physical changes and postdisaster recovery in a residential, coastal environment. JF - Journal of Coastal Research AU - Reif, Molly K AU - Macon, Christopher L AU - Wozencraft, Jennifer M AD - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Engineer Research and Development Center, Environmental Laboratory, Joint Airborne LIDAR Bathymetry Technical Center of eXpertise, 7225 Stennis Airport Road, Suite 100, Kiln, MS 39556, U.S.A., Molly.k.Reif@usace.army.mil Y1 - 2011/03// PY - 2011 DA - March 2011 SP - 30 EP - 39 PB - Coastal Education and Research Foundation IS - 10062 SN - 0749-0208, 0749-0208 KW - Sustainability Science Abstracts; Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; Oceanic Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources KW - Hurricane Katrina KW - LIDAR KW - topography KW - land cover KW - recovery KW - change detection KW - Lake Pontchartrain KW - New Orleans KW - Joint Airborne LIDAR Bathymetry Technical Center of Expertise KW - shores KW - ASW, USA, Louisiana KW - Coastal research KW - Disasters KW - Vegetation KW - Land use KW - Lakes KW - Coastal zone KW - ASW, USA, Louisiana, Pontchartrain L. KW - Classification KW - Emergency preparedness KW - classification KW - innovations KW - Technology KW - M2 556:General (556) KW - O 6060:Coastal Zone Resources and Management KW - M3 1010:Issues in Sustainable Development KW - Q2 09284:Hydrodynamics, wave, current and ice forces UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/893265207?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Assamodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Coastal+Research&rft.atitle=Post-Katrina+Land-Cover%2C+Elevation%2C+and+Volume+Change+Assessment+along+the+South+Shore+of+Lake+Pontchartrain%2C+Louisiana%2C+U.S.A.&rft.au=Reif%2C+Molly+K%3BMacon%2C+Christopher+L%3BWozencraft%2C+Jennifer+M&rft.aulast=Reif&rft.aufirst=Molly&rft.date=2011-03-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=10062&rft.spage=30&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Coastal+Research&rft.issn=07490208&rft_id=info:doi/10.2112%2FSI_62_4 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-04-29 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Coastal zone; Classification; Disasters; Coastal research; shores; Lakes; Emergency preparedness; classification; Vegetation; innovations; Land use; Technology; ASW, USA, Louisiana; ASW, USA, Louisiana, Pontchartrain L. DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.2112/SI_62_4 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Unusual Coloration of a Hairy Woodpecker from Oregon AN - 893262797; 14683269 JF - Northwestern Naturalist AU - Helm, Steven R AU - Stemmer, Regina AU - van Grouw, Hein AD - US Army Corps of Engineers, PO Box 2946 (CENWP-PM-E), Portland, OR 97208 Y1 - 2011/03// PY - 2011 DA - Mar 2011 SP - 76 EP - 78 PB - Society for Northwestern Vertebrate Biology, P.O. Box 22313 Seattle WA 98122 USA VL - 92 IS - 1 SN - 1051-1733, 1051-1733 KW - Ecology Abstracts UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/893262797?accountid=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=Northwestern+Naturalist&rft.atitle=Unusual+Coloration+of+a+Hairy+Woodpecker+from+Oregon&rft.au=Helm%2C+Steven+R%3BStemmer%2C+Regina%3Bvan+Grouw%2C+Hein&rft.aulast=Helm&rft.aufirst=Steven&rft.date=2011-03-01&rft.volume=92&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=76&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Northwestern+Naturalist&rft.issn=10511733&rft_id=info:doi/10.1898%2F10-19.1 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - Last updated - 2012-03-29 DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1898/10-19.1 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Holocene soil-geomorphic surfaces influence the role of salmon-derived nutrients in the coastal temperate rain forest of southeast Alaska AN - 890661953; 2011-078905 AB - The influence of salmon-derived nutrients (SDN) is widely accepted as a potential factor in the maintenance of aquatic and terrestrial productivity in North American Coastal rainforests. Holocene alluvial landforms are intimately connected with the return of anadromous salmon, but the influence of the soils that occupy these landforms and support this important terrestrial-aquatic ecological coupling have not been examined in SDN studies. We used paleo-ecologic information, soil resource inventories and measurements of soil morphology to construct a soil-geomorphic model for alluvial landforms along salmon spawning channels on Prince of Wales Island, Southeast Alaska, USA. Post-glacial sea-level rise, crustal uplift and subsidence combined with Holocene sediment deposition have formed alluvial terraces and floodplains along rivers on Prince of Wales Island. These alluvial landforms have soils that are mapped as Entisols (Tonowek soil series) and Spodosols (Tuxekan soil series). We propose a soil-geomorphic model where the Spodosols located on terraces are estimated to derive from sediments deposited after the stabilization of landscape approximately 8 kybp to 6 kybp. The stability of these soils is reflected through mature soil development with organic matter accumulation and podzolization. Our model identifies Entisols on floodplains developed from alluvial deposition in the latter Holocene that have soil morphologic features consistent with recent deposition and limited soil development. We used this soil-geomorphic model to test the hypothesis that the terrestrial end-member value commonly used to quantify nitrogen (N) loading on soils through stable isotope analysis differs by soil type and found that the two soil types had significantly different N isotopic (delta (super 15) N) values more consistent with soil development than SDN loading. The use of a soil-geomorphic model provides a means to stratify alluvial landforms and constrain the natural variability encountered in studies of riparian nutrient cycles associated with the feedbacks between SDN and terrestrial ecosystems to improve estimates of the fate of SDN in soils and vegetation. JF - Geomorphology AU - D'Amore, David V AU - Bonzey, Nicholas S AU - Berkowitz, Jacob AU - Rueegg, Janine AU - Bridgham, Scott A2 - Wheaton, J. A2 - Gibbins, C. A2 - Wainwright, J. A2 - Larsen, L. A2 - McElroy, B. Y1 - 2011/03// PY - 2011 DA - March 2011 SP - 377 EP - 386 PB - Elsevier, Amsterdam VL - 126 IS - 3-4 SN - 0169-555X, 0169-555X KW - United States KW - isotopes KW - postglacial environment KW - uplifts KW - subsidence KW - rain forests KW - landforms KW - ecosystems KW - Holocene KW - stable isotopes KW - nitrogen KW - Pisces KW - Cenozoic KW - southeastern Alaska KW - Entisols KW - paleosols KW - ecology KW - geochemistry KW - Spodsols KW - Tonowek Bay KW - soils KW - forests KW - Chordata KW - N-15/N-14 KW - Quaternary KW - temperate environment KW - isotope ratios KW - Tuxekan Island KW - nutrients KW - models KW - sea-level changes KW - fluvial features KW - podzolization KW - coastal environment KW - Alaska KW - geomorphology KW - Vertebrata KW - 02D:Isotope geochemistry KW - 25:Soils UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/890661953?accountid=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=Geomorphology&rft.atitle=Holocene+soil-geomorphic+surfaces+influence+the+role+of+salmon-derived+nutrients+in+the+coastal+temperate+rain+forest+of+southeast+Alaska&rft.au=D%27Amore%2C+David+V%3BBonzey%2C+Nicholas+S%3BBerkowitz%2C+Jacob%3BRueegg%2C+Janine%3BBridgham%2C+Scott&rft.aulast=D%27Amore&rft.aufirst=David&rft.date=2011-03-01&rft.volume=126&rft.issue=3-4&rft.spage=377&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Geomorphology&rft.issn=0169555X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.geomorph.2010.04.014 L2 - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/0169555X 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 - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Based on Publisher-supplied data N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Alaska; Cenozoic; Chordata; coastal environment; ecology; ecosystems; Entisols; fluvial features; forests; geochemistry; geomorphology; Holocene; isotope ratios; isotopes; landforms; models; N-15/N-14; nitrogen; nutrients; paleosols; Pisces; podzolization; postglacial environment; Quaternary; rain forests; sea-level changes; soils; southeastern Alaska; Spodsols; stable isotopes; subsidence; temperate environment; Tonowek Bay; Tuxekan Island; United States; uplifts; Vertebrata DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2010.04.014 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Application of the Bammann inelasticity internal state variable constitutive model to geological materials AN - 861988742; 2011-036639 AB - We describe how the Bammann internal state variable (ISV) constitutive approach, which has proven highly successful in modeling deformation processes in metals, can be applied with great benefit to silicate rocks and other geological materials in modelling their deformation dynamics. In its essence, ISV theory provides a constitutive framework to account for changing history states that arise from inelastic dissipative microstructural evolution of a polycrystalline solid. In this paper, we restrict our attention to a Bammann ISV elastic-viscoplastic model with temperature and strain rate dependence and use isotropic hardening and anisotropic hardening as our two ISVs. We show the Bammann model captures the inelastic behavior of olivine aggregates (with and without water), lherzolite (with and without water), Carrara marble and rock salt using some experimental data found in the literature. These examples illustrate that when more experimental stress-strain data are gathered on other rock materials, much more realistic numerical simulation of rock behavior becomes feasible. Though not available in the literature, we outline a set of experiments to obtain unique Bammann ISV model constants. Abstract Copyright (2011), RAS. JF - Geophysical Journal International AU - Sherburn, J A AU - Horstemeyer, M F AU - Bammann, D J AU - Baumgardner, J R Y1 - 2011/03// PY - 2011 DA - March 2011 SP - 1023 EP - 1036 PB - Wiley-Blackwell on behalf of The Royal Astronomical Society, the Deutsche Geophysikalische Gesellschaft and the European Geophysical Society VL - 184 IS - 3 SN - 0956-540X, 0956-540X KW - diffusion KW - strain KW - stress KW - mantle KW - Bammann internal state variable KW - deformation KW - materials KW - dynamics KW - rheology KW - creep KW - anelasticity KW - algorithms KW - plasticity KW - 18:Solid-earth geophysics UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/861988742?accountid=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=Geophysical+Journal+International&rft.atitle=Application+of+the+Bammann+inelasticity+internal+state+variable+constitutive+model+to+geological+materials&rft.au=Sherburn%2C+J+A%3BHorstemeyer%2C+M+F%3BBammann%2C+D+J%3BBaumgardner%2C+J+R&rft.aulast=Sherburn&rft.aufirst=J&rft.date=2011-03-01&rft.volume=184&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=1023&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Geophysical+Journal+International&rft.issn=0956540X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111%2Fj.1365-246X.2010.04917.x L2 - http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0956-540X LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data from John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, United Kingdom N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 48 N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 2 tables N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - algorithms; anelasticity; Bammann internal state variable; creep; deformation; diffusion; dynamics; mantle; materials; plasticity; rheology; strain; stress DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2010.04917.x ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Whole-body and body-part-specific bioconcentration of explosive compounds in sheepshead minnows AN - 1777144845; 14514289 AB - Sheepshead minnows (Cyprinodon variegatus) were exposed to radiolabeled isotopes of the explosives 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene (TNT), exahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (commonly known as RDX), and octahydro-1,3,5,7-tetranitro-1,3,5,7-tetrazocine (commonly known as HMX), yielding the bioconcentration factors (BCF) of 3.3, 0.7, and 0.1Lkg super(-1), respectively. For TNT, the body residue of transformation product exceeded that of the parent compound by factors of 1, 8, and 16 for total aminonitrotoluenes, total extractable compounds, and total transformation products, respectively, with substantial bioaccumulation of both non-identified extractable and unextractable (i.e., tissue-bound), compounds. In comparison, the sum body residues of RDX and HMX transformation products were <4 times higher than for parent compounds. The concentrations of RDX and HMX and their transformation products were similar among liver, viscera (excluding liver), gills, and body remains (integument and muscles), while 46% of the TNT transformation products resided in the liver, and 64% of the parent compound was in the viscera. JF - Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety AU - Lotufo, Guilherme R AD - U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180, USA guilherme.lotufo@usace.army.mil Y1 - 2011/03// PY - 2011 DA - March 2011 SP - 301 EP - 306 PB - Elsevier Science, P.O. Box 211 Amsterdam 1000 AE Netherlands VL - 74 IS - 3 SN - 0147-6513, 0147-6513 KW - Environmental Engineering Abstracts (EN); CSA / ASCE Civil Engineering Abstracts (CE) KW - Explosives KW - TNT KW - RDX KW - Bioconcentration KW - Sheepshead minnow KW - Cyprinodon variegatus KW - HMX KW - Residues KW - Transformations KW - Muscles KW - Liver KW - Parents KW - Viscera KW - Freshwater UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1777144845?accountid=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=Ecotoxicology+and+Environmental+Safety&rft.atitle=Whole-body+and+body-part-specific+bioconcentration+of+explosive+compounds+in+sheepshead+minnows&rft.au=Lotufo%2C+Guilherme+R&rft.aulast=Lotufo&rft.aufirst=Guilherme&rft.date=2011-03-01&rft.volume=74&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=301&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Ecotoxicology+and+Environmental+Safety&rft.issn=01476513&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.ecoenv.2010.07.039 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-05-18 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Freshwater DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2010.07.039 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Dewatering Rock Crushing Fines Using Geotextile Tubes AN - 1285083924; 14781918 AB - A study on dewatering rock crushing fines using geotextile tubes was conducted. Rapid dewatering tests and hanging bag tests were used to evaluate the dewatering efficiencies of the geotextiles as well as the effectiveness of chemical flocculants. Settling ponds are currently the predominant method used to dewater rock crushing fines. Settling ponds effectively dewater the material, but they are relatively slow and require large amounts of land. Recent studies by Kutay and Aydilek (2005), Liao and Bhatia (2005), and Kutay et al. (2005) showed that geotextile tubes can be used to dewater high water content materials. These studies did not address dewatering rock crushing fines. The objective of this study was to assess the dewatering and filtration characteristics of geotextile tubes specifically for rock crushing fines. Tests showed that geotextile tubes effectively dewater rock crushing fines and retain the solid particles. The filter cake forming in the geotextile tube dominates the filtration behavior. The chemical flocculants tested did not improve the dewatering efficiency or the filtration efficiency of the geotextiles. JF - Reston, VA: ASCE Proceedings of the Geo-Frontiers 2011 conference, March 13-16, 2011, Dallas, Texas, d 20110000 AU - Myers, W S AU - Elton, D J AD - Army Corps of Engineers, 3909 Halls Ferry Road Vicksburg, MS 39183. Y1 - 2011/03// PY - 2011 DA - March 2011 SP - 2111 EP - 2120 PB - American Society of Civil Engineers KW - Aqualine Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources KW - Dewatering KW - Rocks KW - Geosynthetics KW - Filtration KW - Testing Procedures KW - USA, Texas, Dallas KW - Solids KW - Tubes KW - Ponds KW - Methodology KW - Rock Testing KW - Behavior KW - Sedimentation KW - SW 5010:Network design KW - AQ 00006:Sewage KW - Q2 09161:General UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1285083924?accountid=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=Reston%2C+VA%3A+ASCE+Proceedings+of+the+Geo-Frontiers+2011+conference%2C+March+13-16%2C+2011%2C+Dallas%2C+Texas+%7Cd+20110000&rft.atitle=Dewatering+Rock+Crushing+Fines+Using+Geotextile+Tubes&rft.au=Myers%2C+W+S%3BElton%2C+D+J&rft.aulast=Myers&rft.aufirst=W&rft.date=2011-03-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=2111&rft.isbn=9780784411650&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Reston%2C+VA%3A+ASCE+Proceedings+of+the+Geo-Frontiers+2011+conference%2C+March+13-16%2C+2011%2C+Dallas%2C+Texas+%7Cd+20110000&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/10.1061%2F41165%28397%29216 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2013-02-01 N1 - Last updated - 2017-02-15 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Filtration; Dewatering; Ponds; Methodology; Rock Testing; Testing Procedures; Behavior; Rocks; Solids; Sedimentation; Tubes; USA, Texas, Dallas DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/41165(397)216 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Geotechnical Risk and Reliability Evaluation of the Levees Protecting the City of Sacramento, California AN - 1285082643; 14782011 AB - The paper provides information on the geotechnical risk and reliability (R&U) evaluation of the levee system protecting the City of Sacramento, California and surrounding area. The analyzed levee system is located on the east bank of the Sacramento River, north and south bank of American River, south bank of the Natomas Cross Canal, east and west banks of the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal and tributaries, and Pleasant Grove Creek Canal. The geotechnical R&U was based on available geotechnical data, geomorphology of the area, and past performance. The reliability of the levee systems was determined by evaluating foundation and embankment materials and assigning values for the probability moments of the random variables considered in the analyses of the critical reaches identified by deterministic analyses. The performance functions considered were slope stability, underseepage gradients, and past performance of the levee based on the erosion history, existing encroachments, and vegetation covering the levees. A set of conditional-probability-of-failure versus floodwater-elevation graphs were developed as related to underseepage piping stability, slope stability, and judgmental conditions. An expert elicitation panel with highly recognized professional specialists, representing the levee districts managing and operating the levee system and specialists in erosion and in geotechnical issues determined the judgment part of the geotechnical reliability curves for the flood control structures, considering the existing conditions on the analyzed levee system. Reliability analysis was performed using Taylor's Series Method. JF - Reston, VA: ASCE Proceedings of the Geo-Frontiers 2011 conference, March 13-16, 2011, Dallas, Texas, d 20110000 AU - Ketchum, Edward AU - Perlea, Mary AU - Kynett, Michael AU - Deus, Anthony AD - US Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District, Sacramento, California, 95814. Y1 - 2011/03// PY - 2011 DA - March 2011 SP - 3018 EP - 3028 PB - American Society of Civil Engineers KW - Aqualine Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources KW - California KW - Levees and dikes KW - Risk management KW - Flood control KW - Seepage KW - Risks KW - Evaluation KW - Geomorphology KW - USA, California, Sacramento R. KW - Banks KW - Geotechnical data KW - Slope Stability KW - Tributaries KW - Land reclamation KW - Rivers KW - USA, California, Sacramento KW - USA, Texas, Dallas KW - Levees KW - Coastal zone management KW - Risk KW - Canals KW - Performance Evaluation KW - Slope stability KW - AQ 00007:Industrial Effluents KW - SW 5080:Evaluation, processing and publication KW - Q2 09124:Coastal zone management UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1285082643?accountid=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=Reston%2C+VA%3A+ASCE+Proceedings+of+the+Geo-Frontiers+2011+conference%2C+March+13-16%2C+2011%2C+Dallas%2C+Texas+%7Cd+20110000&rft.atitle=Geotechnical+Risk+and+Reliability+Evaluation+of+the+Levees+Protecting+the+City+of+Sacramento%2C+California&rft.au=Ketchum%2C+Edward%3BPerlea%2C+Mary%3BKynett%2C+Michael%3BDeus%2C+Anthony&rft.aulast=Ketchum&rft.aufirst=Edward&rft.date=2011-03-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=3018&rft.isbn=9780784411650&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Reston%2C+VA%3A+ASCE+Proceedings+of+the+Geo-Frontiers+2011+conference%2C+March+13-16%2C+2011%2C+Dallas%2C+Texas+%7Cd+20110000&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/10.1061%2F41165%28397%29309 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2013-02-01 N1 - Last updated - 2017-02-15 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Flood control; Geomorphology; Levees; Geotechnical data; Slope stability; Land reclamation; Tributaries; Risks; Coastal zone management; Evaluation; Rivers; Canals; Risk; Performance Evaluation; Banks; Seepage; Slope Stability; USA, Texas, Dallas; USA, California, Sacramento R.; USA, California, Sacramento DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/41165(397)309 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - High-resolution mapping of complex coastal inlets for regional sediment management in North Carolina AN - 1033533153; 2012-074177 AB - The land-sea interface adjacent to tidal inlets are complex zones where significant sediment transport can occur very rapidly to alter landscapes surrounding economic infrastructure, important cultural heritage sites or environmentally sensitive areas. Coastal geologists and engineers recognize that while it is critical to quantify volumetric change within this zone, it is unfortunately one of the hardest regions to map. Shore-normal profiles are typically used to measure change within this zone, but these techniques necessarily assume that a series of two-dimensional (2D) profiles is representative of the actual three-dimensional (3D) morphology. Accurate assessments of the complex spatio-temporal changes observed at tidal inlets require a more robust and repeatable data acquisition and processing method in order to calculate accurate change and for the best possible input for numerical models which aid in regional sediment management goals. Improved instrumentation and purpose built mapping infrastructure facilitates the collection of high-density data needed for detailed surface elevation modeling and datum-derived shoreline analysis. The methods and survey design by which these data are acquired remain paramount to accurately merging topo/bathy data seamlessly within a tidal inlet compartment. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is using these highly dense and accurate data products to not only identify key morphological features but as input into sophisticated numerical models to predict shoaling for navigation, beach / shoreface change, sediment transport and evaluation of potential sediment resources all within a 3D to 4D framework. This combination of modern instrumentation, unique acquisition platforms and high-density, morphologically derived survey designs allow for maximum efficiency in seamless topo/bathy elevation modeling. Grid-based data products provide coastal scientists and engineers with a complete 3D dataset that spans the entire tidal inlet complex for various geospatial analyses in a multidisciplinary GIS environment. JF - Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America AU - Freeman, Christopher AU - McCormick, John AU - Bernstein, David J AU - Kashman, Layla AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2011/03// PY - 2011 DA - March 2011 SP - 24 PB - Geological Society of America (GSA), Boulder, CO VL - 43 IS - 2 SN - 0016-7592, 0016-7592 KW - United States KW - high-resolution methods KW - shore features KW - risk management KW - numerical models KW - sediment transport KW - human activity KW - mapping KW - urbanization KW - inlets KW - beaches KW - intertidal environment KW - safety KW - transport KW - planning KW - North Carolina KW - land management KW - sediments KW - coastal environment KW - erodibility KW - land use KW - 23:Geomorphology KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1033533153?accountid=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=High-resolution+mapping+of+complex+coastal+inlets+for+regional+sediment+management+in+North+Carolina&rft.au=Freeman%2C+Christopher%3BMcCormick%2C+John%3BBernstein%2C+David+J%3BKashman%2C+Layla%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Freeman&rft.aufirst=Christopher&rft.date=2011-03-01&rft.volume=43&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=24&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Abstracts+with+Programs+-+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.issn=00167592&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - Geological Society of America, Southeastern Section, 60th annual meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data supplied by the Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO, United States N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - Last updated - 2012-08-16 N1 - CODEN - GAAPBC N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - beaches; coastal environment; erodibility; high-resolution methods; human activity; inlets; intertidal environment; land management; land use; mapping; North Carolina; numerical models; planning; risk management; safety; sediment transport; sediments; shore features; transport; United States; urbanization ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Geotechnical borrow site characterization for preconstruction engineering and design, West Onslow Beach and New River Inlet, N.C. coastal storm damage reduction project, USACE, Wilmington District AN - 1033532863; 2012-074190 AB - The West Onslow Beach and New River Inlet (Topsail Beach), N.C. Storm Damage Reduction Project is a shore protection project currently being re-authorized for the Town of Topsail Beach. Topsail Beach lies atop a modern transgressive barrier island, Topsail Island, which is subject to hurricane and seasonal storm erosion of the shoreline. Earlier studies conducted by the Wilmington District or sponsored by the Town of Topsail Beach have delineated several borrow sites that may contain enough material for initial construction and subsequent renourishment cycles. The exploration phase of this project was initiated May 2010 in order to evaluate the primary borrow site (Borrow Site A) for the Topsail Beach shoreline segment of Topsail Island. A total of 167 vibracores recovered using Wilmington District's Debris Boat Snell drilling platform, 2.5 to 4.0 miles offshore of New Topsail Inlet. The vibracores were processed, soils visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soils Classification System, and gradation testing conducted using ASTM-D422 "Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils". Much of the material recovered from Borrow Site A is classified as a SP-SM (poorly-graded silty sand). This material appears to be derived from heavily indurated Oligocene sandstone that floors the ocean bottom within the borrow site. Present and historical boring logs were input into a USACE specific gINT geotechnical database to facilitate data modeling. Isopach mapping, along with 2-D and 3-D fence profiling was conducted to describe and quantify the type of material, its distribution, and thickness within the borrow site. The results and findings of this subsurface investigation are presented in order to give insight into the availability of sand resources for the Town of Topsail Beach. JF - Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America AU - Kaltenbach, Kelley J AU - Williams, Erin M AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2011/03// PY - 2011 DA - March 2011 SP - 26 PB - Geological Society of America (GSA), Boulder, CO VL - 43 IS - 2 SN - 0016-7592, 0016-7592 KW - United States KW - soil mechanics KW - shore features KW - New River Inlet KW - beach nourishment KW - Topsail Beach North Carolina KW - engineering properties KW - damage KW - characterization KW - inlets KW - Onslow Bay KW - erosion control KW - North Carolina KW - West Onslow Beach North Carolina KW - storms KW - erodibility KW - construction KW - 30:Engineering geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1033532863?accountid=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=Geotechnical+borrow+site+characterization+for+preconstruction+engineering+and+design%2C+West+Onslow+Beach+and+New+River+Inlet%2C+N.C.+coastal+storm+damage+reduction+project%2C+USACE%2C+Wilmington+District&rft.au=Kaltenbach%2C+Kelley+J%3BWilliams%2C+Erin+M%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Kaltenbach&rft.aufirst=Kelley&rft.date=2011-03-01&rft.volume=43&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=26&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Abstracts+with+Programs+-+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.issn=00167592&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - Geological Society of America, Southeastern Section, 60th annual meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data supplied by the Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO, United States N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - Last updated - 2012-08-16 N1 - CODEN - GAAPBC N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - beach nourishment; characterization; construction; damage; engineering properties; erodibility; erosion control; inlets; New River Inlet; North Carolina; Onslow Bay; shore features; soil mechanics; storms; Topsail Beach North Carolina; United States; West Onslow Beach North Carolina ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Efficacy of non-toxic surfaces to reduce bioadhesion in terrestrial gastropods AN - 1020836282; 16710274 AB - BACKGROUND: Invasive species are described as the greatest threat to biodiversity, after habitat destruction and climate change, potentially imposing economic impacts and indigenous species impairment. Commonly applied chemical controls present the potential for legacy contamination and non-target organism injury. This study investigated the effects of different substrates and novel topographical surfaces on the behavioral and mechanical associations of the terrestrial gastropod Otala lactea. RESULTS: The gastropod preferentially aestivated on rough glass (61% increase, P < 0.01) relative to smooth glass but avoided a cross-patterned surface tessellation on silicone (82% reduction, P < 0.01) relative to smooth silicone. Significant deviations in turning behavior were found on the cross-patterned topographical surface and hydrophobic Teflon surfaces. The strongest correlation with gastropod adhesion strength to surfaces was found for surface elastic modulus (R = 0.88, P = 0.03), followed by hydrophobicity (R = - 0.71, P = 0.14), but no relationship with roughness (P = 0.36). CONCLUSION: Preliminary data suggest surface roughness controlled aestivation behavior while elastic modulus (surface flexibility) controlled adhesion strength. In spite of greater adhesion to high-modulus materials, surface modulus was not a statistically significant controlling factor on gastropod aestivation preference. Understanding and exploiting the behavioral and mechanistic cues that organisms use while attaching to surfaces may lead to more environmentally benign control approaches. Published 2010 by John Wiley & Chemical Industry JF - Pest Management Science AU - Kennedy, Alan J AU - Vasudevan, Ravikumar AU - Pappas, Daphne D AU - Weiss, Charles A AU - Hendrix, Sara H AU - Baney, Ronald H AD - U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Environmental Laboratory, Vicksburg, MS, USA, Alan.J.Kennedy@usace.army.mil Y1 - 2011/03// PY - 2011 DA - March 2011 SP - 318 EP - 327 PB - Wiley-Blackwell, 111 River Street Hoboken NJ 07030-5774 United States VL - 67 IS - 3 SN - 1526-4998, 1526-4998 KW - Toxicology Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts; Aqualine Abstracts KW - Injuries KW - Contamination KW - Flexibility KW - Climate change KW - Climatic changes KW - Statistical analysis KW - Biodiversity KW - Hydrophobicity KW - Exotic Species KW - Gastropods KW - Economics KW - Animal Physiology KW - Aestivation KW - turning behavior KW - Chemical Industry KW - Mechanical properties KW - Benign KW - Otala lactea KW - Data processing KW - Silicones KW - Gastropoda KW - Chemical control KW - Pest control KW - Habitat KW - Economic Impact KW - Indigenous species KW - Strength KW - Behavior KW - Introduced species KW - AQ 00001:Water Resources and Supplies KW - SW 3050:Ultimate disposal of wastes KW - X 24350:Industrial Chemicals UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020836282?accountid=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=Pest+Management+Science&rft.atitle=Efficacy+of+non-toxic+surfaces+to+reduce+bioadhesion+in+terrestrial+gastropods&rft.au=Kennedy%2C+Alan+J%3BVasudevan%2C+Ravikumar%3BPappas%2C+Daphne+D%3BWeiss%2C+Charles+A%3BHendrix%2C+Sara+H%3BBaney%2C+Ronald+H&rft.aulast=Kennedy&rft.aufirst=Alan&rft.date=2011-03-01&rft.volume=67&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=318&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Pest+Management+Science&rft.issn=15264998&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002%2Fps.2068 L2 - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ps.2068/abstract LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-07-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Data processing; Contamination; Silicones; Injuries; Chemical control; Climatic changes; Statistical analysis; Biodiversity; Hydrophobicity; Pest control; Habitat; Indigenous species; Economics; Aestivation; turning behavior; Introduced species; Benign; Mechanical properties; Strength; Behavior; Exotic Species; Flexibility; Climate change; Gastropods; Animal Physiology; Economic Impact; Chemical Industry; Otala lactea; Gastropoda DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ps.2068 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Linking a spatially explicit watershed model (SWAT) with an in-stream fish habitat model (PHABSIM): A case study of setting minimum flows and levels in a low gradient, sub-tropical river AN - 1017974643; 16711627 AB - As changes in landuse and the demand for water accelerate, regulators and resource managers are increasingly asked to evaluate water allocation against the need for protection of in-stream habitat. In the United States, only a small number of river basins have the long-term hydrograph data needed to make these assessments. This paper presents an example of how to bridge the conceptual and physical divide between GIS-based watershed modelling of basin-discharge and in-stream hydraulic habitat models. Specifically, we used a Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model for the Hillsborough River to produce data for use in a Physical HABitat SIMulation (PHABSIM) model of the same river. This coupling of models allowed us to develop long-term discharge data in ungauged river systems based on watershed characteristics and precipitation records. However this approach is not without important limitations. Results confirm that accuracy of the SWAT-predicted hydrograph declines significantly when either the DEM resolution becomes too coarse or if DEM data are resampled to a coarser or finer resolution. This is due to both changes in the size and shape of the river basin with the varying DEMs and subsequent shifts in the proportions of land use, soils and elevation. Results show the use of 30m DEMs produced hydrographic patterns amenable for using in-stream habitat protocols like PHABSIM model, especially where little or no hydrographic and land use information exists. JF - River Research and Applications AU - Casper, A F AU - Dixon, B AU - Earls, J AU - Gore, J A AD - Aquatic Ecology and Invasive Species Branch, Environmental Laboratory, US Army Corps of Engineers-Engineer Research and Development Center, 3909 Halls Ferry Rd. Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199, USA, andrew.f.casper@usace.asrmy.mil Y1 - 2011/03// PY - 2011 DA - March 2011 SP - 269 EP - 282 PB - Wiley-Blackwell, 111 River Street Hoboken NJ 07030-5774 United States VL - 27 IS - 3 SN - 1535-1467, 1535-1467 KW - Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; Sustainability Science Abstracts; Environment Abstracts; Ecology Abstracts; ASFA 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources; Water Resources Abstracts; Aqualine Abstracts KW - Land Use KW - Hydraulics KW - River Basins KW - Resource management KW - Freshwater KW - Watersheds KW - Soil KW - River systems KW - Hydrographs KW - Modelling KW - Rivers KW - resource allocation KW - River discharge KW - River basins KW - Habitat KW - Land use KW - Model Studies KW - Watershed modelling KW - Numerical simulations KW - Aquatic Habitats KW - Water management KW - Fish KW - Geographic information systems KW - Hydrograph analysis KW - Models KW - Habitats KW - Assessments KW - Data processing KW - Simulation KW - Hydrographic surveys KW - Precipitation KW - USA KW - Q1 08463:Habitat community studies KW - ENA 09:Land Use & Planning KW - M3 1010:Issues in Sustainable Development KW - D 04040:Ecosystem and Ecology Studies KW - AQ 00008:Effects of Pollution KW - M2 556.16:Runoff (556.16) KW - SW 6010:Structures UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1017974643?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aaqualine&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=River+Research+and+Applications&rft.atitle=Linking+a+spatially+explicit+watershed+model+%28SWAT%29+with+an+in-stream+fish+habitat+model+%28PHABSIM%29%3A+A+case+study+of+setting+minimum+flows+and+levels+in+a+low+gradient%2C+sub-tropical+river&rft.au=Casper%2C+A+F%3BDixon%2C+B%3BEarls%2C+J%3BGore%2C+J+A&rft.aulast=Casper&rft.aufirst=A&rft.date=2011-03-01&rft.volume=27&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=269&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=River+Research+and+Applications&rft.issn=15351467&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002%2Frra.1355 L2 - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/rra.1355/abstract LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2012-05-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-04-29 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Resource management; Water management; River discharge; Hydrographic surveys; River basins; Habitat; Watersheds; Land use; Modelling; Soil; Rivers; Hydraulics; Data processing; Precipitation; Models; Hydrograph analysis; River systems; Numerical simulations; Watershed modelling; resource allocation; Simulation; Fish; Geographic information systems; Land Use; River Basins; Habitats; Assessments; Aquatic Habitats; Hydrographs; Model Studies; USA; Freshwater DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/rra.1355 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. [Part 28 of 44] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 873133635; 14806-0_0028 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permits for commercial dredging of sand and gravel from approximately 390 miles of the Missouri River that extends from its confluence with the Mississippi River to near Rulo, Nebraska is proposed. Dredging activities have occurred on the lower Missouri River (LOMR) for the past 100 years, and previous dredging permits have been authorized for five-year periods. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Kansas City District has determined that substantial river bed degradation has occurred in portions of the LOMR and that the reaches of the river most degraded coincide with areas where commercial sand and gravel dredging has been greatest. Key issues identified during scoping include: the geomorphology of the river, including bed degradation and changes in water surface levels; effects of geomorphology on infrastructure and water supplies; economic effects of changing costs for commercial sand and gravel; impacts on the ecosystem and protected species; and recreation. The proposed action is: reauthorization by the USACE of eight existing dredging permits to six applicants; authorization of three additional proposed dredging permits; and authorization of any as yet unforeseen proposed dredging permits. Together, the dredgers propose being permitted to dredge up to 11.6 million tons of sand and gravel from the LOMR annually. Average annual dredging from the LOMR from 2004 to 2008 was 6.9 million tons. Two of the applicants propose constructing onshore sand plants to support the proposed dredging operations. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, current commercial dredging permits would expire on the extended expiration date of March 31, 2011. Alternatives A, B, and C would set allowable commercial dredging at 2.2 million tons per year, 5.1 million tons per year, and 6.9 million tons per year, respectively. The environmentally preferred alternative is a composite alternative that would include implementation of Alternative B on the St. Joseph and Waverly segments, Alternative C on the Jefferson City and St. Charles segments, and Alternative A on the Kansas City segment. The total allowable combined dredging amount would be 5.8 million tons per year. As part of the environmentally preferred alternative, it is recommended that low flow water surface elevation data should be collected every year and hydroacoustic bed elevation data surveys should be conducted every five years for the lower 498 miles of the LOMR. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continued commercial dredging would provide the essential sand and gravel components of construction materials, which are integral to the economy of the region that encompasses St. Joseph, greater Kansas City, central Missouri, and greater St. Louis. Implementation of the environmentally preferred alternative should balance the various public interests, including the need for aggregate and the need for a stable river system providing other services including water supply. The allowable levels of dredging with associated restrictions are anticipated to result in no more than slight river bed degradation in the near term and long term. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approval of dredging activities as proposed would likely result in continued, and in some cases substantial, river bed degradation with consequent changes in water surface elevations in the LOMR, including portions of the river at Kansas City, Jefferson City, and St. Charles. Dredging activities would have direct impact on aquatic habitat and benthic substrate. Increased injury or mortality to pallid sturgeon eggs, larvae, or juveniles could occur. Denial of all permit applications would likely result in negative socioeconomic impacts to communities along the river. Under the more restrictive alternatives, production of sand and gravel from alternate sources would need to increase in order to offset the reduced supplies from the LOMR. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0567D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110050, Final EIS--1,372 pages and maps, Appendices--343 pages, February 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 28 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Noise Standards KW - Rivers KW - Sand KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality KW - Missouri KW - Missouri River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133635?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Kansas City, Missouri; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. [Part 27 of 44] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 873133631; 14806-0_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permits for commercial dredging of sand and gravel from approximately 390 miles of the Missouri River that extends from its confluence with the Mississippi River to near Rulo, Nebraska is proposed. Dredging activities have occurred on the lower Missouri River (LOMR) for the past 100 years, and previous dredging permits have been authorized for five-year periods. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Kansas City District has determined that substantial river bed degradation has occurred in portions of the LOMR and that the reaches of the river most degraded coincide with areas where commercial sand and gravel dredging has been greatest. Key issues identified during scoping include: the geomorphology of the river, including bed degradation and changes in water surface levels; effects of geomorphology on infrastructure and water supplies; economic effects of changing costs for commercial sand and gravel; impacts on the ecosystem and protected species; and recreation. The proposed action is: reauthorization by the USACE of eight existing dredging permits to six applicants; authorization of three additional proposed dredging permits; and authorization of any as yet unforeseen proposed dredging permits. Together, the dredgers propose being permitted to dredge up to 11.6 million tons of sand and gravel from the LOMR annually. Average annual dredging from the LOMR from 2004 to 2008 was 6.9 million tons. Two of the applicants propose constructing onshore sand plants to support the proposed dredging operations. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, current commercial dredging permits would expire on the extended expiration date of March 31, 2011. Alternatives A, B, and C would set allowable commercial dredging at 2.2 million tons per year, 5.1 million tons per year, and 6.9 million tons per year, respectively. The environmentally preferred alternative is a composite alternative that would include implementation of Alternative B on the St. Joseph and Waverly segments, Alternative C on the Jefferson City and St. Charles segments, and Alternative A on the Kansas City segment. The total allowable combined dredging amount would be 5.8 million tons per year. As part of the environmentally preferred alternative, it is recommended that low flow water surface elevation data should be collected every year and hydroacoustic bed elevation data surveys should be conducted every five years for the lower 498 miles of the LOMR. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continued commercial dredging would provide the essential sand and gravel components of construction materials, which are integral to the economy of the region that encompasses St. Joseph, greater Kansas City, central Missouri, and greater St. Louis. Implementation of the environmentally preferred alternative should balance the various public interests, including the need for aggregate and the need for a stable river system providing other services including water supply. The allowable levels of dredging with associated restrictions are anticipated to result in no more than slight river bed degradation in the near term and long term. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approval of dredging activities as proposed would likely result in continued, and in some cases substantial, river bed degradation with consequent changes in water surface elevations in the LOMR, including portions of the river at Kansas City, Jefferson City, and St. Charles. Dredging activities would have direct impact on aquatic habitat and benthic substrate. Increased injury or mortality to pallid sturgeon eggs, larvae, or juveniles could occur. Denial of all permit applications would likely result in negative socioeconomic impacts to communities along the river. Under the more restrictive alternatives, production of sand and gravel from alternate sources would need to increase in order to offset the reduced supplies from the LOMR. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0567D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110050, Final EIS--1,372 pages and maps, Appendices--343 pages, February 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 27 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Noise Standards KW - Rivers KW - Sand KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality KW - Missouri KW - Missouri River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133631?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Kansas City, Missouri; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. [Part 16 of 44] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 873133626; 14806-0_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permits for commercial dredging of sand and gravel from approximately 390 miles of the Missouri River that extends from its confluence with the Mississippi River to near Rulo, Nebraska is proposed. Dredging activities have occurred on the lower Missouri River (LOMR) for the past 100 years, and previous dredging permits have been authorized for five-year periods. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Kansas City District has determined that substantial river bed degradation has occurred in portions of the LOMR and that the reaches of the river most degraded coincide with areas where commercial sand and gravel dredging has been greatest. Key issues identified during scoping include: the geomorphology of the river, including bed degradation and changes in water surface levels; effects of geomorphology on infrastructure and water supplies; economic effects of changing costs for commercial sand and gravel; impacts on the ecosystem and protected species; and recreation. The proposed action is: reauthorization by the USACE of eight existing dredging permits to six applicants; authorization of three additional proposed dredging permits; and authorization of any as yet unforeseen proposed dredging permits. Together, the dredgers propose being permitted to dredge up to 11.6 million tons of sand and gravel from the LOMR annually. Average annual dredging from the LOMR from 2004 to 2008 was 6.9 million tons. Two of the applicants propose constructing onshore sand plants to support the proposed dredging operations. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, current commercial dredging permits would expire on the extended expiration date of March 31, 2011. Alternatives A, B, and C would set allowable commercial dredging at 2.2 million tons per year, 5.1 million tons per year, and 6.9 million tons per year, respectively. The environmentally preferred alternative is a composite alternative that would include implementation of Alternative B on the St. Joseph and Waverly segments, Alternative C on the Jefferson City and St. Charles segments, and Alternative A on the Kansas City segment. The total allowable combined dredging amount would be 5.8 million tons per year. As part of the environmentally preferred alternative, it is recommended that low flow water surface elevation data should be collected every year and hydroacoustic bed elevation data surveys should be conducted every five years for the lower 498 miles of the LOMR. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continued commercial dredging would provide the essential sand and gravel components of construction materials, which are integral to the economy of the region that encompasses St. Joseph, greater Kansas City, central Missouri, and greater St. Louis. Implementation of the environmentally preferred alternative should balance the various public interests, including the need for aggregate and the need for a stable river system providing other services including water supply. The allowable levels of dredging with associated restrictions are anticipated to result in no more than slight river bed degradation in the near term and long term. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approval of dredging activities as proposed would likely result in continued, and in some cases substantial, river bed degradation with consequent changes in water surface elevations in the LOMR, including portions of the river at Kansas City, Jefferson City, and St. Charles. Dredging activities would have direct impact on aquatic habitat and benthic substrate. Increased injury or mortality to pallid sturgeon eggs, larvae, or juveniles could occur. Denial of all permit applications would likely result in negative socioeconomic impacts to communities along the river. Under the more restrictive alternatives, production of sand and gravel from alternate sources would need to increase in order to offset the reduced supplies from the LOMR. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0567D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110050, Final EIS--1,372 pages and maps, Appendices--343 pages, February 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 16 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Noise Standards KW - Rivers KW - Sand KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality KW - Missouri KW - Missouri River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133626?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Kansas City, Missouri; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. [Part 15 of 44] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 873133624; 14806-0_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permits for commercial dredging of sand and gravel from approximately 390 miles of the Missouri River that extends from its confluence with the Mississippi River to near Rulo, Nebraska is proposed. Dredging activities have occurred on the lower Missouri River (LOMR) for the past 100 years, and previous dredging permits have been authorized for five-year periods. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Kansas City District has determined that substantial river bed degradation has occurred in portions of the LOMR and that the reaches of the river most degraded coincide with areas where commercial sand and gravel dredging has been greatest. Key issues identified during scoping include: the geomorphology of the river, including bed degradation and changes in water surface levels; effects of geomorphology on infrastructure and water supplies; economic effects of changing costs for commercial sand and gravel; impacts on the ecosystem and protected species; and recreation. The proposed action is: reauthorization by the USACE of eight existing dredging permits to six applicants; authorization of three additional proposed dredging permits; and authorization of any as yet unforeseen proposed dredging permits. Together, the dredgers propose being permitted to dredge up to 11.6 million tons of sand and gravel from the LOMR annually. Average annual dredging from the LOMR from 2004 to 2008 was 6.9 million tons. Two of the applicants propose constructing onshore sand plants to support the proposed dredging operations. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, current commercial dredging permits would expire on the extended expiration date of March 31, 2011. Alternatives A, B, and C would set allowable commercial dredging at 2.2 million tons per year, 5.1 million tons per year, and 6.9 million tons per year, respectively. The environmentally preferred alternative is a composite alternative that would include implementation of Alternative B on the St. Joseph and Waverly segments, Alternative C on the Jefferson City and St. Charles segments, and Alternative A on the Kansas City segment. The total allowable combined dredging amount would be 5.8 million tons per year. As part of the environmentally preferred alternative, it is recommended that low flow water surface elevation data should be collected every year and hydroacoustic bed elevation data surveys should be conducted every five years for the lower 498 miles of the LOMR. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continued commercial dredging would provide the essential sand and gravel components of construction materials, which are integral to the economy of the region that encompasses St. Joseph, greater Kansas City, central Missouri, and greater St. Louis. Implementation of the environmentally preferred alternative should balance the various public interests, including the need for aggregate and the need for a stable river system providing other services including water supply. The allowable levels of dredging with associated restrictions are anticipated to result in no more than slight river bed degradation in the near term and long term. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approval of dredging activities as proposed would likely result in continued, and in some cases substantial, river bed degradation with consequent changes in water surface elevations in the LOMR, including portions of the river at Kansas City, Jefferson City, and St. Charles. Dredging activities would have direct impact on aquatic habitat and benthic substrate. Increased injury or mortality to pallid sturgeon eggs, larvae, or juveniles could occur. Denial of all permit applications would likely result in negative socioeconomic impacts to communities along the river. Under the more restrictive alternatives, production of sand and gravel from alternate sources would need to increase in order to offset the reduced supplies from the LOMR. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0567D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110050, Final EIS--1,372 pages and maps, Appendices--343 pages, February 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Noise Standards KW - Rivers KW - Sand KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality KW - Missouri KW - Missouri River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133624?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Kansas City, Missouri; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. [Part 14 of 44] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 873133621; 14806-0_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permits for commercial dredging of sand and gravel from approximately 390 miles of the Missouri River that extends from its confluence with the Mississippi River to near Rulo, Nebraska is proposed. Dredging activities have occurred on the lower Missouri River (LOMR) for the past 100 years, and previous dredging permits have been authorized for five-year periods. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Kansas City District has determined that substantial river bed degradation has occurred in portions of the LOMR and that the reaches of the river most degraded coincide with areas where commercial sand and gravel dredging has been greatest. Key issues identified during scoping include: the geomorphology of the river, including bed degradation and changes in water surface levels; effects of geomorphology on infrastructure and water supplies; economic effects of changing costs for commercial sand and gravel; impacts on the ecosystem and protected species; and recreation. The proposed action is: reauthorization by the USACE of eight existing dredging permits to six applicants; authorization of three additional proposed dredging permits; and authorization of any as yet unforeseen proposed dredging permits. Together, the dredgers propose being permitted to dredge up to 11.6 million tons of sand and gravel from the LOMR annually. Average annual dredging from the LOMR from 2004 to 2008 was 6.9 million tons. Two of the applicants propose constructing onshore sand plants to support the proposed dredging operations. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, current commercial dredging permits would expire on the extended expiration date of March 31, 2011. Alternatives A, B, and C would set allowable commercial dredging at 2.2 million tons per year, 5.1 million tons per year, and 6.9 million tons per year, respectively. The environmentally preferred alternative is a composite alternative that would include implementation of Alternative B on the St. Joseph and Waverly segments, Alternative C on the Jefferson City and St. Charles segments, and Alternative A on the Kansas City segment. The total allowable combined dredging amount would be 5.8 million tons per year. As part of the environmentally preferred alternative, it is recommended that low flow water surface elevation data should be collected every year and hydroacoustic bed elevation data surveys should be conducted every five years for the lower 498 miles of the LOMR. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continued commercial dredging would provide the essential sand and gravel components of construction materials, which are integral to the economy of the region that encompasses St. Joseph, greater Kansas City, central Missouri, and greater St. Louis. Implementation of the environmentally preferred alternative should balance the various public interests, including the need for aggregate and the need for a stable river system providing other services including water supply. The allowable levels of dredging with associated restrictions are anticipated to result in no more than slight river bed degradation in the near term and long term. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approval of dredging activities as proposed would likely result in continued, and in some cases substantial, river bed degradation with consequent changes in water surface elevations in the LOMR, including portions of the river at Kansas City, Jefferson City, and St. Charles. Dredging activities would have direct impact on aquatic habitat and benthic substrate. Increased injury or mortality to pallid sturgeon eggs, larvae, or juveniles could occur. Denial of all permit applications would likely result in negative socioeconomic impacts to communities along the river. Under the more restrictive alternatives, production of sand and gravel from alternate sources would need to increase in order to offset the reduced supplies from the LOMR. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0567D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110050, Final EIS--1,372 pages and maps, Appendices--343 pages, February 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Noise Standards KW - Rivers KW - Sand KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality KW - Missouri KW - Missouri River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133621?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Kansas City, Missouri; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. [Part 13 of 44] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 873133619; 14806-0_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permits for commercial dredging of sand and gravel from approximately 390 miles of the Missouri River that extends from its confluence with the Mississippi River to near Rulo, Nebraska is proposed. Dredging activities have occurred on the lower Missouri River (LOMR) for the past 100 years, and previous dredging permits have been authorized for five-year periods. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Kansas City District has determined that substantial river bed degradation has occurred in portions of the LOMR and that the reaches of the river most degraded coincide with areas where commercial sand and gravel dredging has been greatest. Key issues identified during scoping include: the geomorphology of the river, including bed degradation and changes in water surface levels; effects of geomorphology on infrastructure and water supplies; economic effects of changing costs for commercial sand and gravel; impacts on the ecosystem and protected species; and recreation. The proposed action is: reauthorization by the USACE of eight existing dredging permits to six applicants; authorization of three additional proposed dredging permits; and authorization of any as yet unforeseen proposed dredging permits. Together, the dredgers propose being permitted to dredge up to 11.6 million tons of sand and gravel from the LOMR annually. Average annual dredging from the LOMR from 2004 to 2008 was 6.9 million tons. Two of the applicants propose constructing onshore sand plants to support the proposed dredging operations. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, current commercial dredging permits would expire on the extended expiration date of March 31, 2011. Alternatives A, B, and C would set allowable commercial dredging at 2.2 million tons per year, 5.1 million tons per year, and 6.9 million tons per year, respectively. The environmentally preferred alternative is a composite alternative that would include implementation of Alternative B on the St. Joseph and Waverly segments, Alternative C on the Jefferson City and St. Charles segments, and Alternative A on the Kansas City segment. The total allowable combined dredging amount would be 5.8 million tons per year. As part of the environmentally preferred alternative, it is recommended that low flow water surface elevation data should be collected every year and hydroacoustic bed elevation data surveys should be conducted every five years for the lower 498 miles of the LOMR. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continued commercial dredging would provide the essential sand and gravel components of construction materials, which are integral to the economy of the region that encompasses St. Joseph, greater Kansas City, central Missouri, and greater St. Louis. Implementation of the environmentally preferred alternative should balance the various public interests, including the need for aggregate and the need for a stable river system providing other services including water supply. The allowable levels of dredging with associated restrictions are anticipated to result in no more than slight river bed degradation in the near term and long term. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approval of dredging activities as proposed would likely result in continued, and in some cases substantial, river bed degradation with consequent changes in water surface elevations in the LOMR, including portions of the river at Kansas City, Jefferson City, and St. Charles. Dredging activities would have direct impact on aquatic habitat and benthic substrate. Increased injury or mortality to pallid sturgeon eggs, larvae, or juveniles could occur. Denial of all permit applications would likely result in negative socioeconomic impacts to communities along the river. Under the more restrictive alternatives, production of sand and gravel from alternate sources would need to increase in order to offset the reduced supplies from the LOMR. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0567D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110050, Final EIS--1,372 pages and maps, Appendices--343 pages, February 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Noise Standards KW - Rivers KW - Sand KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality KW - Missouri KW - Missouri River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133619?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Kansas City, Missouri; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. [Part 12 of 44] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 873133617; 14806-0_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permits for commercial dredging of sand and gravel from approximately 390 miles of the Missouri River that extends from its confluence with the Mississippi River to near Rulo, Nebraska is proposed. Dredging activities have occurred on the lower Missouri River (LOMR) for the past 100 years, and previous dredging permits have been authorized for five-year periods. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Kansas City District has determined that substantial river bed degradation has occurred in portions of the LOMR and that the reaches of the river most degraded coincide with areas where commercial sand and gravel dredging has been greatest. Key issues identified during scoping include: the geomorphology of the river, including bed degradation and changes in water surface levels; effects of geomorphology on infrastructure and water supplies; economic effects of changing costs for commercial sand and gravel; impacts on the ecosystem and protected species; and recreation. The proposed action is: reauthorization by the USACE of eight existing dredging permits to six applicants; authorization of three additional proposed dredging permits; and authorization of any as yet unforeseen proposed dredging permits. Together, the dredgers propose being permitted to dredge up to 11.6 million tons of sand and gravel from the LOMR annually. Average annual dredging from the LOMR from 2004 to 2008 was 6.9 million tons. Two of the applicants propose constructing onshore sand plants to support the proposed dredging operations. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, current commercial dredging permits would expire on the extended expiration date of March 31, 2011. Alternatives A, B, and C would set allowable commercial dredging at 2.2 million tons per year, 5.1 million tons per year, and 6.9 million tons per year, respectively. The environmentally preferred alternative is a composite alternative that would include implementation of Alternative B on the St. Joseph and Waverly segments, Alternative C on the Jefferson City and St. Charles segments, and Alternative A on the Kansas City segment. The total allowable combined dredging amount would be 5.8 million tons per year. As part of the environmentally preferred alternative, it is recommended that low flow water surface elevation data should be collected every year and hydroacoustic bed elevation data surveys should be conducted every five years for the lower 498 miles of the LOMR. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continued commercial dredging would provide the essential sand and gravel components of construction materials, which are integral to the economy of the region that encompasses St. Joseph, greater Kansas City, central Missouri, and greater St. Louis. Implementation of the environmentally preferred alternative should balance the various public interests, including the need for aggregate and the need for a stable river system providing other services including water supply. The allowable levels of dredging with associated restrictions are anticipated to result in no more than slight river bed degradation in the near term and long term. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approval of dredging activities as proposed would likely result in continued, and in some cases substantial, river bed degradation with consequent changes in water surface elevations in the LOMR, including portions of the river at Kansas City, Jefferson City, and St. Charles. Dredging activities would have direct impact on aquatic habitat and benthic substrate. Increased injury or mortality to pallid sturgeon eggs, larvae, or juveniles could occur. Denial of all permit applications would likely result in negative socioeconomic impacts to communities along the river. Under the more restrictive alternatives, production of sand and gravel from alternate sources would need to increase in order to offset the reduced supplies from the LOMR. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0567D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110050, Final EIS--1,372 pages and maps, Appendices--343 pages, February 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Noise Standards KW - Rivers KW - Sand KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality KW - Missouri KW - Missouri River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133617?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Kansas City, Missouri; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. [Part 11 of 44] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 873133616; 14806-0_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permits for commercial dredging of sand and gravel from approximately 390 miles of the Missouri River that extends from its confluence with the Mississippi River to near Rulo, Nebraska is proposed. Dredging activities have occurred on the lower Missouri River (LOMR) for the past 100 years, and previous dredging permits have been authorized for five-year periods. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Kansas City District has determined that substantial river bed degradation has occurred in portions of the LOMR and that the reaches of the river most degraded coincide with areas where commercial sand and gravel dredging has been greatest. Key issues identified during scoping include: the geomorphology of the river, including bed degradation and changes in water surface levels; effects of geomorphology on infrastructure and water supplies; economic effects of changing costs for commercial sand and gravel; impacts on the ecosystem and protected species; and recreation. The proposed action is: reauthorization by the USACE of eight existing dredging permits to six applicants; authorization of three additional proposed dredging permits; and authorization of any as yet unforeseen proposed dredging permits. Together, the dredgers propose being permitted to dredge up to 11.6 million tons of sand and gravel from the LOMR annually. Average annual dredging from the LOMR from 2004 to 2008 was 6.9 million tons. Two of the applicants propose constructing onshore sand plants to support the proposed dredging operations. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, current commercial dredging permits would expire on the extended expiration date of March 31, 2011. Alternatives A, B, and C would set allowable commercial dredging at 2.2 million tons per year, 5.1 million tons per year, and 6.9 million tons per year, respectively. The environmentally preferred alternative is a composite alternative that would include implementation of Alternative B on the St. Joseph and Waverly segments, Alternative C on the Jefferson City and St. Charles segments, and Alternative A on the Kansas City segment. The total allowable combined dredging amount would be 5.8 million tons per year. As part of the environmentally preferred alternative, it is recommended that low flow water surface elevation data should be collected every year and hydroacoustic bed elevation data surveys should be conducted every five years for the lower 498 miles of the LOMR. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continued commercial dredging would provide the essential sand and gravel components of construction materials, which are integral to the economy of the region that encompasses St. Joseph, greater Kansas City, central Missouri, and greater St. Louis. Implementation of the environmentally preferred alternative should balance the various public interests, including the need for aggregate and the need for a stable river system providing other services including water supply. The allowable levels of dredging with associated restrictions are anticipated to result in no more than slight river bed degradation in the near term and long term. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approval of dredging activities as proposed would likely result in continued, and in some cases substantial, river bed degradation with consequent changes in water surface elevations in the LOMR, including portions of the river at Kansas City, Jefferson City, and St. Charles. Dredging activities would have direct impact on aquatic habitat and benthic substrate. Increased injury or mortality to pallid sturgeon eggs, larvae, or juveniles could occur. Denial of all permit applications would likely result in negative socioeconomic impacts to communities along the river. Under the more restrictive alternatives, production of sand and gravel from alternate sources would need to increase in order to offset the reduced supplies from the LOMR. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0567D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110050, Final EIS--1,372 pages and maps, Appendices--343 pages, February 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Noise Standards KW - Rivers KW - Sand KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality KW - Missouri KW - Missouri River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133616?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Kansas City, Missouri; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. [Part 10 of 44] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 873133614; 14806-0_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permits for commercial dredging of sand and gravel from approximately 390 miles of the Missouri River that extends from its confluence with the Mississippi River to near Rulo, Nebraska is proposed. Dredging activities have occurred on the lower Missouri River (LOMR) for the past 100 years, and previous dredging permits have been authorized for five-year periods. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Kansas City District has determined that substantial river bed degradation has occurred in portions of the LOMR and that the reaches of the river most degraded coincide with areas where commercial sand and gravel dredging has been greatest. Key issues identified during scoping include: the geomorphology of the river, including bed degradation and changes in water surface levels; effects of geomorphology on infrastructure and water supplies; economic effects of changing costs for commercial sand and gravel; impacts on the ecosystem and protected species; and recreation. The proposed action is: reauthorization by the USACE of eight existing dredging permits to six applicants; authorization of three additional proposed dredging permits; and authorization of any as yet unforeseen proposed dredging permits. Together, the dredgers propose being permitted to dredge up to 11.6 million tons of sand and gravel from the LOMR annually. Average annual dredging from the LOMR from 2004 to 2008 was 6.9 million tons. Two of the applicants propose constructing onshore sand plants to support the proposed dredging operations. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, current commercial dredging permits would expire on the extended expiration date of March 31, 2011. Alternatives A, B, and C would set allowable commercial dredging at 2.2 million tons per year, 5.1 million tons per year, and 6.9 million tons per year, respectively. The environmentally preferred alternative is a composite alternative that would include implementation of Alternative B on the St. Joseph and Waverly segments, Alternative C on the Jefferson City and St. Charles segments, and Alternative A on the Kansas City segment. The total allowable combined dredging amount would be 5.8 million tons per year. As part of the environmentally preferred alternative, it is recommended that low flow water surface elevation data should be collected every year and hydroacoustic bed elevation data surveys should be conducted every five years for the lower 498 miles of the LOMR. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continued commercial dredging would provide the essential sand and gravel components of construction materials, which are integral to the economy of the region that encompasses St. Joseph, greater Kansas City, central Missouri, and greater St. Louis. Implementation of the environmentally preferred alternative should balance the various public interests, including the need for aggregate and the need for a stable river system providing other services including water supply. The allowable levels of dredging with associated restrictions are anticipated to result in no more than slight river bed degradation in the near term and long term. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approval of dredging activities as proposed would likely result in continued, and in some cases substantial, river bed degradation with consequent changes in water surface elevations in the LOMR, including portions of the river at Kansas City, Jefferson City, and St. Charles. Dredging activities would have direct impact on aquatic habitat and benthic substrate. Increased injury or mortality to pallid sturgeon eggs, larvae, or juveniles could occur. Denial of all permit applications would likely result in negative socioeconomic impacts to communities along the river. Under the more restrictive alternatives, production of sand and gravel from alternate sources would need to increase in order to offset the reduced supplies from the LOMR. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0567D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110050, Final EIS--1,372 pages and maps, Appendices--343 pages, February 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Noise Standards KW - Rivers KW - Sand KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality KW - Missouri KW - Missouri River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133614?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Kansas City, Missouri; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. [Part 9 of 44] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 873133612; 14806-0_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permits for commercial dredging of sand and gravel from approximately 390 miles of the Missouri River that extends from its confluence with the Mississippi River to near Rulo, Nebraska is proposed. Dredging activities have occurred on the lower Missouri River (LOMR) for the past 100 years, and previous dredging permits have been authorized for five-year periods. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Kansas City District has determined that substantial river bed degradation has occurred in portions of the LOMR and that the reaches of the river most degraded coincide with areas where commercial sand and gravel dredging has been greatest. Key issues identified during scoping include: the geomorphology of the river, including bed degradation and changes in water surface levels; effects of geomorphology on infrastructure and water supplies; economic effects of changing costs for commercial sand and gravel; impacts on the ecosystem and protected species; and recreation. The proposed action is: reauthorization by the USACE of eight existing dredging permits to six applicants; authorization of three additional proposed dredging permits; and authorization of any as yet unforeseen proposed dredging permits. Together, the dredgers propose being permitted to dredge up to 11.6 million tons of sand and gravel from the LOMR annually. Average annual dredging from the LOMR from 2004 to 2008 was 6.9 million tons. Two of the applicants propose constructing onshore sand plants to support the proposed dredging operations. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, current commercial dredging permits would expire on the extended expiration date of March 31, 2011. Alternatives A, B, and C would set allowable commercial dredging at 2.2 million tons per year, 5.1 million tons per year, and 6.9 million tons per year, respectively. The environmentally preferred alternative is a composite alternative that would include implementation of Alternative B on the St. Joseph and Waverly segments, Alternative C on the Jefferson City and St. Charles segments, and Alternative A on the Kansas City segment. The total allowable combined dredging amount would be 5.8 million tons per year. As part of the environmentally preferred alternative, it is recommended that low flow water surface elevation data should be collected every year and hydroacoustic bed elevation data surveys should be conducted every five years for the lower 498 miles of the LOMR. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continued commercial dredging would provide the essential sand and gravel components of construction materials, which are integral to the economy of the region that encompasses St. Joseph, greater Kansas City, central Missouri, and greater St. Louis. Implementation of the environmentally preferred alternative should balance the various public interests, including the need for aggregate and the need for a stable river system providing other services including water supply. The allowable levels of dredging with associated restrictions are anticipated to result in no more than slight river bed degradation in the near term and long term. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approval of dredging activities as proposed would likely result in continued, and in some cases substantial, river bed degradation with consequent changes in water surface elevations in the LOMR, including portions of the river at Kansas City, Jefferson City, and St. Charles. Dredging activities would have direct impact on aquatic habitat and benthic substrate. Increased injury or mortality to pallid sturgeon eggs, larvae, or juveniles could occur. Denial of all permit applications would likely result in negative socioeconomic impacts to communities along the river. Under the more restrictive alternatives, production of sand and gravel from alternate sources would need to increase in order to offset the reduced supplies from the LOMR. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0567D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110050, Final EIS--1,372 pages and maps, Appendices--343 pages, February 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Noise Standards KW - Rivers KW - Sand KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality KW - Missouri KW - Missouri River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133612?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Kansas City, Missouri; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. [Part 8 of 44] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 873133611; 14806-0_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permits for commercial dredging of sand and gravel from approximately 390 miles of the Missouri River that extends from its confluence with the Mississippi River to near Rulo, Nebraska is proposed. Dredging activities have occurred on the lower Missouri River (LOMR) for the past 100 years, and previous dredging permits have been authorized for five-year periods. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Kansas City District has determined that substantial river bed degradation has occurred in portions of the LOMR and that the reaches of the river most degraded coincide with areas where commercial sand and gravel dredging has been greatest. Key issues identified during scoping include: the geomorphology of the river, including bed degradation and changes in water surface levels; effects of geomorphology on infrastructure and water supplies; economic effects of changing costs for commercial sand and gravel; impacts on the ecosystem and protected species; and recreation. The proposed action is: reauthorization by the USACE of eight existing dredging permits to six applicants; authorization of three additional proposed dredging permits; and authorization of any as yet unforeseen proposed dredging permits. Together, the dredgers propose being permitted to dredge up to 11.6 million tons of sand and gravel from the LOMR annually. Average annual dredging from the LOMR from 2004 to 2008 was 6.9 million tons. Two of the applicants propose constructing onshore sand plants to support the proposed dredging operations. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, current commercial dredging permits would expire on the extended expiration date of March 31, 2011. Alternatives A, B, and C would set allowable commercial dredging at 2.2 million tons per year, 5.1 million tons per year, and 6.9 million tons per year, respectively. The environmentally preferred alternative is a composite alternative that would include implementation of Alternative B on the St. Joseph and Waverly segments, Alternative C on the Jefferson City and St. Charles segments, and Alternative A on the Kansas City segment. The total allowable combined dredging amount would be 5.8 million tons per year. As part of the environmentally preferred alternative, it is recommended that low flow water surface elevation data should be collected every year and hydroacoustic bed elevation data surveys should be conducted every five years for the lower 498 miles of the LOMR. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continued commercial dredging would provide the essential sand and gravel components of construction materials, which are integral to the economy of the region that encompasses St. Joseph, greater Kansas City, central Missouri, and greater St. Louis. Implementation of the environmentally preferred alternative should balance the various public interests, including the need for aggregate and the need for a stable river system providing other services including water supply. The allowable levels of dredging with associated restrictions are anticipated to result in no more than slight river bed degradation in the near term and long term. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approval of dredging activities as proposed would likely result in continued, and in some cases substantial, river bed degradation with consequent changes in water surface elevations in the LOMR, including portions of the river at Kansas City, Jefferson City, and St. Charles. Dredging activities would have direct impact on aquatic habitat and benthic substrate. Increased injury or mortality to pallid sturgeon eggs, larvae, or juveniles could occur. Denial of all permit applications would likely result in negative socioeconomic impacts to communities along the river. Under the more restrictive alternatives, production of sand and gravel from alternate sources would need to increase in order to offset the reduced supplies from the LOMR. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0567D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110050, Final EIS--1,372 pages and maps, Appendices--343 pages, February 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Noise Standards KW - Rivers KW - Sand KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality KW - Missouri KW - Missouri River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133611?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Kansas City, Missouri; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. [Part 7 of 44] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 873133609; 14806-0_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permits for commercial dredging of sand and gravel from approximately 390 miles of the Missouri River that extends from its confluence with the Mississippi River to near Rulo, Nebraska is proposed. Dredging activities have occurred on the lower Missouri River (LOMR) for the past 100 years, and previous dredging permits have been authorized for five-year periods. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Kansas City District has determined that substantial river bed degradation has occurred in portions of the LOMR and that the reaches of the river most degraded coincide with areas where commercial sand and gravel dredging has been greatest. Key issues identified during scoping include: the geomorphology of the river, including bed degradation and changes in water surface levels; effects of geomorphology on infrastructure and water supplies; economic effects of changing costs for commercial sand and gravel; impacts on the ecosystem and protected species; and recreation. The proposed action is: reauthorization by the USACE of eight existing dredging permits to six applicants; authorization of three additional proposed dredging permits; and authorization of any as yet unforeseen proposed dredging permits. Together, the dredgers propose being permitted to dredge up to 11.6 million tons of sand and gravel from the LOMR annually. Average annual dredging from the LOMR from 2004 to 2008 was 6.9 million tons. Two of the applicants propose constructing onshore sand plants to support the proposed dredging operations. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, current commercial dredging permits would expire on the extended expiration date of March 31, 2011. Alternatives A, B, and C would set allowable commercial dredging at 2.2 million tons per year, 5.1 million tons per year, and 6.9 million tons per year, respectively. The environmentally preferred alternative is a composite alternative that would include implementation of Alternative B on the St. Joseph and Waverly segments, Alternative C on the Jefferson City and St. Charles segments, and Alternative A on the Kansas City segment. The total allowable combined dredging amount would be 5.8 million tons per year. As part of the environmentally preferred alternative, it is recommended that low flow water surface elevation data should be collected every year and hydroacoustic bed elevation data surveys should be conducted every five years for the lower 498 miles of the LOMR. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continued commercial dredging would provide the essential sand and gravel components of construction materials, which are integral to the economy of the region that encompasses St. Joseph, greater Kansas City, central Missouri, and greater St. Louis. Implementation of the environmentally preferred alternative should balance the various public interests, including the need for aggregate and the need for a stable river system providing other services including water supply. The allowable levels of dredging with associated restrictions are anticipated to result in no more than slight river bed degradation in the near term and long term. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approval of dredging activities as proposed would likely result in continued, and in some cases substantial, river bed degradation with consequent changes in water surface elevations in the LOMR, including portions of the river at Kansas City, Jefferson City, and St. Charles. Dredging activities would have direct impact on aquatic habitat and benthic substrate. Increased injury or mortality to pallid sturgeon eggs, larvae, or juveniles could occur. Denial of all permit applications would likely result in negative socioeconomic impacts to communities along the river. Under the more restrictive alternatives, production of sand and gravel from alternate sources would need to increase in order to offset the reduced supplies from the LOMR. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0567D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110050, Final EIS--1,372 pages and maps, Appendices--343 pages, February 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Noise Standards KW - Rivers KW - Sand KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality KW - Missouri KW - Missouri River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133609?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Kansas City, Missouri; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. [Part 6 of 44] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 873133607; 14806-0_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permits for commercial dredging of sand and gravel from approximately 390 miles of the Missouri River that extends from its confluence with the Mississippi River to near Rulo, Nebraska is proposed. Dredging activities have occurred on the lower Missouri River (LOMR) for the past 100 years, and previous dredging permits have been authorized for five-year periods. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Kansas City District has determined that substantial river bed degradation has occurred in portions of the LOMR and that the reaches of the river most degraded coincide with areas where commercial sand and gravel dredging has been greatest. Key issues identified during scoping include: the geomorphology of the river, including bed degradation and changes in water surface levels; effects of geomorphology on infrastructure and water supplies; economic effects of changing costs for commercial sand and gravel; impacts on the ecosystem and protected species; and recreation. The proposed action is: reauthorization by the USACE of eight existing dredging permits to six applicants; authorization of three additional proposed dredging permits; and authorization of any as yet unforeseen proposed dredging permits. Together, the dredgers propose being permitted to dredge up to 11.6 million tons of sand and gravel from the LOMR annually. Average annual dredging from the LOMR from 2004 to 2008 was 6.9 million tons. Two of the applicants propose constructing onshore sand plants to support the proposed dredging operations. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, current commercial dredging permits would expire on the extended expiration date of March 31, 2011. Alternatives A, B, and C would set allowable commercial dredging at 2.2 million tons per year, 5.1 million tons per year, and 6.9 million tons per year, respectively. The environmentally preferred alternative is a composite alternative that would include implementation of Alternative B on the St. Joseph and Waverly segments, Alternative C on the Jefferson City and St. Charles segments, and Alternative A on the Kansas City segment. The total allowable combined dredging amount would be 5.8 million tons per year. As part of the environmentally preferred alternative, it is recommended that low flow water surface elevation data should be collected every year and hydroacoustic bed elevation data surveys should be conducted every five years for the lower 498 miles of the LOMR. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continued commercial dredging would provide the essential sand and gravel components of construction materials, which are integral to the economy of the region that encompasses St. Joseph, greater Kansas City, central Missouri, and greater St. Louis. Implementation of the environmentally preferred alternative should balance the various public interests, including the need for aggregate and the need for a stable river system providing other services including water supply. The allowable levels of dredging with associated restrictions are anticipated to result in no more than slight river bed degradation in the near term and long term. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approval of dredging activities as proposed would likely result in continued, and in some cases substantial, river bed degradation with consequent changes in water surface elevations in the LOMR, including portions of the river at Kansas City, Jefferson City, and St. Charles. Dredging activities would have direct impact on aquatic habitat and benthic substrate. Increased injury or mortality to pallid sturgeon eggs, larvae, or juveniles could occur. Denial of all permit applications would likely result in negative socioeconomic impacts to communities along the river. Under the more restrictive alternatives, production of sand and gravel from alternate sources would need to increase in order to offset the reduced supplies from the LOMR. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0567D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110050, Final EIS--1,372 pages and maps, Appendices--343 pages, February 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Noise Standards KW - Rivers KW - Sand KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality KW - Missouri KW - Missouri River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133607?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Kansas City, Missouri; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OHIO RIVER MAINSTEM SYSTEMS STUDY, SYSTEM INVESTMENT PLAN, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, KENTUCKY, OHIO, PENNSYLVANIA, AND WEST VIRGINIA. [Part 3 of 4] T2 - OHIO RIVER MAINSTEM SYSTEMS STUDY, SYSTEM INVESTMENT PLAN, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, KENTUCKY, OHIO, PENNSYLVANIA, AND WEST VIRGINIA. AN - 873133586; 14809-3_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a system investment plan (SIP) for the 981-mile Ohio River in Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, and Pennsylvania is proposed to maintain safe, environmentally sustainable, and reliable navigation along the river from 2010 to 2070. The Ohio River mainstem is the principal artery of the Ohio River System (ORS), which also includes its navigable tributaries, the Allegheny, Monongahela, Kanawha, Big Sandy, Kentucky, Green, Tennessee, and Cumberland rivers. Users of the ORS ship 270 million tons of commodities worth over $30 billion annually, resulting in a transportation savings of $2.0 billion. The SIP addresses the operation and maintenance, rehabilitation, and construction reinvestment needs at the 19 navigation lock and dam sites on the mainstem. The SIP was developed to evaluate system-wide priorities and impacts; it does not recommend specific projects for authorization by Congress. A major focus is the comprehensive Cumulative Effects Assessment that evaluates impacts from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions falling into 10 categories of valued environmental components. For many of the recommended actions, future site-specific studies would be required prior to project approval or recommendation for authorization. Navigation investment alternatives were formulated based on five possible traffic forecast scenarios associated with utility coal, air quality compliance policy, and economic growth. Ecosystem sustainability alternatives were formulated from measures identified during facilitated group discussions that focused on the highest priority needs to enhance aquatic and riparian ecosystem sustainability. Navigation-related recommendations in the SIP would provide for a mix of investments ranging from reactive maintenance (replacement of lock components as failure occurred) through advance maintenance (replacement of lock components before failure) and major rehabilitation (bundling of multiple replacements into a rehabilitation component) to lock modernization (new lock chambers at Emsworth, Dashields, and Montgomery locks and dams on the upper Ohio River). Ecosystem-related recommendations would provide for the initiation of the previously authorized Ohio River Ecosystem Restoration Program and planning and implementation of additional measures to improve ecosystem sustainability in collaboration with other interests. In addition to the action alternatives, this final programmatic EIS considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred plan includes all features of the best navigation (National Economic Development Plan) and environmental sustainability (National Environmental Sustainability Plan) investment plans. Specific recommendations include: increased operation and maintenance investments to maximize economic efficiency; provision of optimal funding for the Upper Ohio River Study currently underway; initiation of main chamber rehabilitation studies for Meldahl, Hannibal, and Myers as soon as possible; initiation of main chamber rehabilitation study for Pike Island in the near term; completion of work on the Markland gates as soon as possible; and initiation of the Ohio River Basin Comprehensive Study. All detailed evaluation of site-specific impacts for follow on studies and other actions would be tiered from this SIP/programmatic EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The SIP would provide a balance between economic development and ecological preservation and enhancement along the river corridor. By maintaining a long-term comprehensive program for maintaining a viable navigation system on the main stem, the project would allow continued development of industries dependent on the ORS for transportation and continue to support substantial direct and indirect employment along the associated rivers. Locking delays expected due to increased traffic and inadequate and deteriorating infrastructure would be reduced or eliminated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All plans would have some degree of construction impacts and would affect fish spawning areas, mussel habitat, and riparian and floodplain resources, including wetlands and bottomland forest areas. Wildlife and fish habitat would be lost and habitat units available would decline somewhat. The operation of locks and dams would continue to alter river hydrology in both upstream and downstream reaches of the river. LEGAL MANDATES: Public Works Appropriations (P.L. 94-355) and River and Harbor Act of 1902. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0451D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110053, Final EIS--535 pages, Engineering and Economic Appendices--437 pages, Environmental Appendix Volume 1--762 pages, Environmental Appendix Volume 2--1,129 pages, February 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Bank Protection KW - Barges KW - Dams KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Fish KW - Forests KW - Navigation KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Shellfish KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Illinois KW - Indiana KW - Kentucky KW - Ohio KW - Ohio River KW - Pennsylvania KW - West Virginia KW - Public Works Appropriations, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1902, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133586?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OHIO+RIVER+MAINSTEM+SYSTEMS+STUDY%2C+SYSTEM+INVESTMENT+PLAN%2C+ILLINOIS%2C+INDIANA%2C+KENTUCKY%2C+OHIO%2C+PENNSYLVANIA%2C+AND+WEST+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=OHIO+RIVER+MAINSTEM+SYSTEMS+STUDY%2C+SYSTEM+INVESTMENT+PLAN%2C+ILLINOIS%2C+INDIANA%2C+KENTUCKY%2C+OHIO%2C+PENNSYLVANIA%2C+AND+WEST+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OHIO RIVER MAINSTEM SYSTEMS STUDY, SYSTEM INVESTMENT PLAN, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, KENTUCKY, OHIO, PENNSYLVANIA, AND WEST VIRGINIA. [Part 2 of 4] T2 - OHIO RIVER MAINSTEM SYSTEMS STUDY, SYSTEM INVESTMENT PLAN, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, KENTUCKY, OHIO, PENNSYLVANIA, AND WEST VIRGINIA. AN - 873133581; 14809-3_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a system investment plan (SIP) for the 981-mile Ohio River in Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, and Pennsylvania is proposed to maintain safe, environmentally sustainable, and reliable navigation along the river from 2010 to 2070. The Ohio River mainstem is the principal artery of the Ohio River System (ORS), which also includes its navigable tributaries, the Allegheny, Monongahela, Kanawha, Big Sandy, Kentucky, Green, Tennessee, and Cumberland rivers. Users of the ORS ship 270 million tons of commodities worth over $30 billion annually, resulting in a transportation savings of $2.0 billion. The SIP addresses the operation and maintenance, rehabilitation, and construction reinvestment needs at the 19 navigation lock and dam sites on the mainstem. The SIP was developed to evaluate system-wide priorities and impacts; it does not recommend specific projects for authorization by Congress. A major focus is the comprehensive Cumulative Effects Assessment that evaluates impacts from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions falling into 10 categories of valued environmental components. For many of the recommended actions, future site-specific studies would be required prior to project approval or recommendation for authorization. Navigation investment alternatives were formulated based on five possible traffic forecast scenarios associated with utility coal, air quality compliance policy, and economic growth. Ecosystem sustainability alternatives were formulated from measures identified during facilitated group discussions that focused on the highest priority needs to enhance aquatic and riparian ecosystem sustainability. Navigation-related recommendations in the SIP would provide for a mix of investments ranging from reactive maintenance (replacement of lock components as failure occurred) through advance maintenance (replacement of lock components before failure) and major rehabilitation (bundling of multiple replacements into a rehabilitation component) to lock modernization (new lock chambers at Emsworth, Dashields, and Montgomery locks and dams on the upper Ohio River). Ecosystem-related recommendations would provide for the initiation of the previously authorized Ohio River Ecosystem Restoration Program and planning and implementation of additional measures to improve ecosystem sustainability in collaboration with other interests. In addition to the action alternatives, this final programmatic EIS considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred plan includes all features of the best navigation (National Economic Development Plan) and environmental sustainability (National Environmental Sustainability Plan) investment plans. Specific recommendations include: increased operation and maintenance investments to maximize economic efficiency; provision of optimal funding for the Upper Ohio River Study currently underway; initiation of main chamber rehabilitation studies for Meldahl, Hannibal, and Myers as soon as possible; initiation of main chamber rehabilitation study for Pike Island in the near term; completion of work on the Markland gates as soon as possible; and initiation of the Ohio River Basin Comprehensive Study. All detailed evaluation of site-specific impacts for follow on studies and other actions would be tiered from this SIP/programmatic EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The SIP would provide a balance between economic development and ecological preservation and enhancement along the river corridor. By maintaining a long-term comprehensive program for maintaining a viable navigation system on the main stem, the project would allow continued development of industries dependent on the ORS for transportation and continue to support substantial direct and indirect employment along the associated rivers. Locking delays expected due to increased traffic and inadequate and deteriorating infrastructure would be reduced or eliminated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All plans would have some degree of construction impacts and would affect fish spawning areas, mussel habitat, and riparian and floodplain resources, including wetlands and bottomland forest areas. Wildlife and fish habitat would be lost and habitat units available would decline somewhat. The operation of locks and dams would continue to alter river hydrology in both upstream and downstream reaches of the river. LEGAL MANDATES: Public Works Appropriations (P.L. 94-355) and River and Harbor Act of 1902. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0451D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110053, Final EIS--535 pages, Engineering and Economic Appendices--437 pages, Environmental Appendix Volume 1--762 pages, Environmental Appendix Volume 2--1,129 pages, February 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Bank Protection KW - Barges KW - Dams KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Fish KW - Forests KW - Navigation KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Shellfish KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Illinois KW - Indiana KW - Kentucky KW - Ohio KW - Ohio River KW - Pennsylvania KW - West Virginia KW - Public Works Appropriations, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1902, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133581?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OHIO+RIVER+MAINSTEM+SYSTEMS+STUDY%2C+SYSTEM+INVESTMENT+PLAN%2C+ILLINOIS%2C+INDIANA%2C+KENTUCKY%2C+OHIO%2C+PENNSYLVANIA%2C+AND+WEST+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=OHIO+RIVER+MAINSTEM+SYSTEMS+STUDY%2C+SYSTEM+INVESTMENT+PLAN%2C+ILLINOIS%2C+INDIANA%2C+KENTUCKY%2C+OHIO%2C+PENNSYLVANIA%2C+AND+WEST+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OHIO RIVER MAINSTEM SYSTEMS STUDY, SYSTEM INVESTMENT PLAN, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, KENTUCKY, OHIO, PENNSYLVANIA, AND WEST VIRGINIA. [Part 1 of 4] T2 - OHIO RIVER MAINSTEM SYSTEMS STUDY, SYSTEM INVESTMENT PLAN, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, KENTUCKY, OHIO, PENNSYLVANIA, AND WEST VIRGINIA. AN - 873133576; 14809-3_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a system investment plan (SIP) for the 981-mile Ohio River in Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, and Pennsylvania is proposed to maintain safe, environmentally sustainable, and reliable navigation along the river from 2010 to 2070. The Ohio River mainstem is the principal artery of the Ohio River System (ORS), which also includes its navigable tributaries, the Allegheny, Monongahela, Kanawha, Big Sandy, Kentucky, Green, Tennessee, and Cumberland rivers. Users of the ORS ship 270 million tons of commodities worth over $30 billion annually, resulting in a transportation savings of $2.0 billion. The SIP addresses the operation and maintenance, rehabilitation, and construction reinvestment needs at the 19 navigation lock and dam sites on the mainstem. The SIP was developed to evaluate system-wide priorities and impacts; it does not recommend specific projects for authorization by Congress. A major focus is the comprehensive Cumulative Effects Assessment that evaluates impacts from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions falling into 10 categories of valued environmental components. For many of the recommended actions, future site-specific studies would be required prior to project approval or recommendation for authorization. Navigation investment alternatives were formulated based on five possible traffic forecast scenarios associated with utility coal, air quality compliance policy, and economic growth. Ecosystem sustainability alternatives were formulated from measures identified during facilitated group discussions that focused on the highest priority needs to enhance aquatic and riparian ecosystem sustainability. Navigation-related recommendations in the SIP would provide for a mix of investments ranging from reactive maintenance (replacement of lock components as failure occurred) through advance maintenance (replacement of lock components before failure) and major rehabilitation (bundling of multiple replacements into a rehabilitation component) to lock modernization (new lock chambers at Emsworth, Dashields, and Montgomery locks and dams on the upper Ohio River). Ecosystem-related recommendations would provide for the initiation of the previously authorized Ohio River Ecosystem Restoration Program and planning and implementation of additional measures to improve ecosystem sustainability in collaboration with other interests. In addition to the action alternatives, this final programmatic EIS considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred plan includes all features of the best navigation (National Economic Development Plan) and environmental sustainability (National Environmental Sustainability Plan) investment plans. Specific recommendations include: increased operation and maintenance investments to maximize economic efficiency; provision of optimal funding for the Upper Ohio River Study currently underway; initiation of main chamber rehabilitation studies for Meldahl, Hannibal, and Myers as soon as possible; initiation of main chamber rehabilitation study for Pike Island in the near term; completion of work on the Markland gates as soon as possible; and initiation of the Ohio River Basin Comprehensive Study. All detailed evaluation of site-specific impacts for follow on studies and other actions would be tiered from this SIP/programmatic EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The SIP would provide a balance between economic development and ecological preservation and enhancement along the river corridor. By maintaining a long-term comprehensive program for maintaining a viable navigation system on the main stem, the project would allow continued development of industries dependent on the ORS for transportation and continue to support substantial direct and indirect employment along the associated rivers. Locking delays expected due to increased traffic and inadequate and deteriorating infrastructure would be reduced or eliminated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All plans would have some degree of construction impacts and would affect fish spawning areas, mussel habitat, and riparian and floodplain resources, including wetlands and bottomland forest areas. Wildlife and fish habitat would be lost and habitat units available would decline somewhat. The operation of locks and dams would continue to alter river hydrology in both upstream and downstream reaches of the river. LEGAL MANDATES: Public Works Appropriations (P.L. 94-355) and River and Harbor Act of 1902. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0451D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110053, Final EIS--535 pages, Engineering and Economic Appendices--437 pages, Environmental Appendix Volume 1--762 pages, Environmental Appendix Volume 2--1,129 pages, February 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Bank Protection KW - Barges KW - Dams KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Fish KW - Forests KW - Navigation KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Shellfish KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Illinois KW - Indiana KW - Kentucky KW - Ohio KW - Ohio River KW - Pennsylvania KW - West Virginia KW - Public Works Appropriations, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1902, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133576?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OHIO+RIVER+MAINSTEM+SYSTEMS+STUDY%2C+SYSTEM+INVESTMENT+PLAN%2C+ILLINOIS%2C+INDIANA%2C+KENTUCKY%2C+OHIO%2C+PENNSYLVANIA%2C+AND+WEST+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=OHIO+RIVER+MAINSTEM+SYSTEMS+STUDY%2C+SYSTEM+INVESTMENT+PLAN%2C+ILLINOIS%2C+INDIANA%2C+KENTUCKY%2C+OHIO%2C+PENNSYLVANIA%2C+AND+WEST+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. [Part 40 of 44] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 873133306; 14806-0_0040 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permits for commercial dredging of sand and gravel from approximately 390 miles of the Missouri River that extends from its confluence with the Mississippi River to near Rulo, Nebraska is proposed. Dredging activities have occurred on the lower Missouri River (LOMR) for the past 100 years, and previous dredging permits have been authorized for five-year periods. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Kansas City District has determined that substantial river bed degradation has occurred in portions of the LOMR and that the reaches of the river most degraded coincide with areas where commercial sand and gravel dredging has been greatest. Key issues identified during scoping include: the geomorphology of the river, including bed degradation and changes in water surface levels; effects of geomorphology on infrastructure and water supplies; economic effects of changing costs for commercial sand and gravel; impacts on the ecosystem and protected species; and recreation. The proposed action is: reauthorization by the USACE of eight existing dredging permits to six applicants; authorization of three additional proposed dredging permits; and authorization of any as yet unforeseen proposed dredging permits. Together, the dredgers propose being permitted to dredge up to 11.6 million tons of sand and gravel from the LOMR annually. Average annual dredging from the LOMR from 2004 to 2008 was 6.9 million tons. Two of the applicants propose constructing onshore sand plants to support the proposed dredging operations. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, current commercial dredging permits would expire on the extended expiration date of March 31, 2011. Alternatives A, B, and C would set allowable commercial dredging at 2.2 million tons per year, 5.1 million tons per year, and 6.9 million tons per year, respectively. The environmentally preferred alternative is a composite alternative that would include implementation of Alternative B on the St. Joseph and Waverly segments, Alternative C on the Jefferson City and St. Charles segments, and Alternative A on the Kansas City segment. The total allowable combined dredging amount would be 5.8 million tons per year. As part of the environmentally preferred alternative, it is recommended that low flow water surface elevation data should be collected every year and hydroacoustic bed elevation data surveys should be conducted every five years for the lower 498 miles of the LOMR. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continued commercial dredging would provide the essential sand and gravel components of construction materials, which are integral to the economy of the region that encompasses St. Joseph, greater Kansas City, central Missouri, and greater St. Louis. Implementation of the environmentally preferred alternative should balance the various public interests, including the need for aggregate and the need for a stable river system providing other services including water supply. The allowable levels of dredging with associated restrictions are anticipated to result in no more than slight river bed degradation in the near term and long term. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approval of dredging activities as proposed would likely result in continued, and in some cases substantial, river bed degradation with consequent changes in water surface elevations in the LOMR, including portions of the river at Kansas City, Jefferson City, and St. Charles. Dredging activities would have direct impact on aquatic habitat and benthic substrate. Increased injury or mortality to pallid sturgeon eggs, larvae, or juveniles could occur. Denial of all permit applications would likely result in negative socioeconomic impacts to communities along the river. Under the more restrictive alternatives, production of sand and gravel from alternate sources would need to increase in order to offset the reduced supplies from the LOMR. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0567D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110050, Final EIS--1,372 pages and maps, Appendices--343 pages, February 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 40 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Noise Standards KW - Rivers KW - Sand KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality KW - Missouri KW - Missouri River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133306?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Kansas City, Missouri; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. [Part 39 of 44] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 873133296; 14806-0_0039 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permits for commercial dredging of sand and gravel from approximately 390 miles of the Missouri River that extends from its confluence with the Mississippi River to near Rulo, Nebraska is proposed. Dredging activities have occurred on the lower Missouri River (LOMR) for the past 100 years, and previous dredging permits have been authorized for five-year periods. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Kansas City District has determined that substantial river bed degradation has occurred in portions of the LOMR and that the reaches of the river most degraded coincide with areas where commercial sand and gravel dredging has been greatest. Key issues identified during scoping include: the geomorphology of the river, including bed degradation and changes in water surface levels; effects of geomorphology on infrastructure and water supplies; economic effects of changing costs for commercial sand and gravel; impacts on the ecosystem and protected species; and recreation. The proposed action is: reauthorization by the USACE of eight existing dredging permits to six applicants; authorization of three additional proposed dredging permits; and authorization of any as yet unforeseen proposed dredging permits. Together, the dredgers propose being permitted to dredge up to 11.6 million tons of sand and gravel from the LOMR annually. Average annual dredging from the LOMR from 2004 to 2008 was 6.9 million tons. Two of the applicants propose constructing onshore sand plants to support the proposed dredging operations. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, current commercial dredging permits would expire on the extended expiration date of March 31, 2011. Alternatives A, B, and C would set allowable commercial dredging at 2.2 million tons per year, 5.1 million tons per year, and 6.9 million tons per year, respectively. The environmentally preferred alternative is a composite alternative that would include implementation of Alternative B on the St. Joseph and Waverly segments, Alternative C on the Jefferson City and St. Charles segments, and Alternative A on the Kansas City segment. The total allowable combined dredging amount would be 5.8 million tons per year. As part of the environmentally preferred alternative, it is recommended that low flow water surface elevation data should be collected every year and hydroacoustic bed elevation data surveys should be conducted every five years for the lower 498 miles of the LOMR. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continued commercial dredging would provide the essential sand and gravel components of construction materials, which are integral to the economy of the region that encompasses St. Joseph, greater Kansas City, central Missouri, and greater St. Louis. Implementation of the environmentally preferred alternative should balance the various public interests, including the need for aggregate and the need for a stable river system providing other services including water supply. The allowable levels of dredging with associated restrictions are anticipated to result in no more than slight river bed degradation in the near term and long term. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approval of dredging activities as proposed would likely result in continued, and in some cases substantial, river bed degradation with consequent changes in water surface elevations in the LOMR, including portions of the river at Kansas City, Jefferson City, and St. Charles. Dredging activities would have direct impact on aquatic habitat and benthic substrate. Increased injury or mortality to pallid sturgeon eggs, larvae, or juveniles could occur. Denial of all permit applications would likely result in negative socioeconomic impacts to communities along the river. Under the more restrictive alternatives, production of sand and gravel from alternate sources would need to increase in order to offset the reduced supplies from the LOMR. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0567D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110050, Final EIS--1,372 pages and maps, Appendices--343 pages, February 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 39 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Noise Standards KW - Rivers KW - Sand KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality KW - Missouri KW - Missouri River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133296?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Kansas City, Missouri; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. [Part 36 of 44] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 873133278; 14806-0_0036 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permits for commercial dredging of sand and gravel from approximately 390 miles of the Missouri River that extends from its confluence with the Mississippi River to near Rulo, Nebraska is proposed. Dredging activities have occurred on the lower Missouri River (LOMR) for the past 100 years, and previous dredging permits have been authorized for five-year periods. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Kansas City District has determined that substantial river bed degradation has occurred in portions of the LOMR and that the reaches of the river most degraded coincide with areas where commercial sand and gravel dredging has been greatest. Key issues identified during scoping include: the geomorphology of the river, including bed degradation and changes in water surface levels; effects of geomorphology on infrastructure and water supplies; economic effects of changing costs for commercial sand and gravel; impacts on the ecosystem and protected species; and recreation. The proposed action is: reauthorization by the USACE of eight existing dredging permits to six applicants; authorization of three additional proposed dredging permits; and authorization of any as yet unforeseen proposed dredging permits. Together, the dredgers propose being permitted to dredge up to 11.6 million tons of sand and gravel from the LOMR annually. Average annual dredging from the LOMR from 2004 to 2008 was 6.9 million tons. Two of the applicants propose constructing onshore sand plants to support the proposed dredging operations. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, current commercial dredging permits would expire on the extended expiration date of March 31, 2011. Alternatives A, B, and C would set allowable commercial dredging at 2.2 million tons per year, 5.1 million tons per year, and 6.9 million tons per year, respectively. The environmentally preferred alternative is a composite alternative that would include implementation of Alternative B on the St. Joseph and Waverly segments, Alternative C on the Jefferson City and St. Charles segments, and Alternative A on the Kansas City segment. The total allowable combined dredging amount would be 5.8 million tons per year. As part of the environmentally preferred alternative, it is recommended that low flow water surface elevation data should be collected every year and hydroacoustic bed elevation data surveys should be conducted every five years for the lower 498 miles of the LOMR. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continued commercial dredging would provide the essential sand and gravel components of construction materials, which are integral to the economy of the region that encompasses St. Joseph, greater Kansas City, central Missouri, and greater St. Louis. Implementation of the environmentally preferred alternative should balance the various public interests, including the need for aggregate and the need for a stable river system providing other services including water supply. The allowable levels of dredging with associated restrictions are anticipated to result in no more than slight river bed degradation in the near term and long term. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approval of dredging activities as proposed would likely result in continued, and in some cases substantial, river bed degradation with consequent changes in water surface elevations in the LOMR, including portions of the river at Kansas City, Jefferson City, and St. Charles. Dredging activities would have direct impact on aquatic habitat and benthic substrate. Increased injury or mortality to pallid sturgeon eggs, larvae, or juveniles could occur. Denial of all permit applications would likely result in negative socioeconomic impacts to communities along the river. Under the more restrictive alternatives, production of sand and gravel from alternate sources would need to increase in order to offset the reduced supplies from the LOMR. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0567D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110050, Final EIS--1,372 pages and maps, Appendices--343 pages, February 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 36 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Noise Standards KW - Rivers KW - Sand KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality KW - Missouri KW - Missouri River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133278?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Kansas City, Missouri; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. [Part 35 of 44] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 873133270; 14806-0_0035 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permits for commercial dredging of sand and gravel from approximately 390 miles of the Missouri River that extends from its confluence with the Mississippi River to near Rulo, Nebraska is proposed. Dredging activities have occurred on the lower Missouri River (LOMR) for the past 100 years, and previous dredging permits have been authorized for five-year periods. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Kansas City District has determined that substantial river bed degradation has occurred in portions of the LOMR and that the reaches of the river most degraded coincide with areas where commercial sand and gravel dredging has been greatest. Key issues identified during scoping include: the geomorphology of the river, including bed degradation and changes in water surface levels; effects of geomorphology on infrastructure and water supplies; economic effects of changing costs for commercial sand and gravel; impacts on the ecosystem and protected species; and recreation. The proposed action is: reauthorization by the USACE of eight existing dredging permits to six applicants; authorization of three additional proposed dredging permits; and authorization of any as yet unforeseen proposed dredging permits. Together, the dredgers propose being permitted to dredge up to 11.6 million tons of sand and gravel from the LOMR annually. Average annual dredging from the LOMR from 2004 to 2008 was 6.9 million tons. Two of the applicants propose constructing onshore sand plants to support the proposed dredging operations. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, current commercial dredging permits would expire on the extended expiration date of March 31, 2011. Alternatives A, B, and C would set allowable commercial dredging at 2.2 million tons per year, 5.1 million tons per year, and 6.9 million tons per year, respectively. The environmentally preferred alternative is a composite alternative that would include implementation of Alternative B on the St. Joseph and Waverly segments, Alternative C on the Jefferson City and St. Charles segments, and Alternative A on the Kansas City segment. The total allowable combined dredging amount would be 5.8 million tons per year. As part of the environmentally preferred alternative, it is recommended that low flow water surface elevation data should be collected every year and hydroacoustic bed elevation data surveys should be conducted every five years for the lower 498 miles of the LOMR. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continued commercial dredging would provide the essential sand and gravel components of construction materials, which are integral to the economy of the region that encompasses St. Joseph, greater Kansas City, central Missouri, and greater St. Louis. Implementation of the environmentally preferred alternative should balance the various public interests, including the need for aggregate and the need for a stable river system providing other services including water supply. The allowable levels of dredging with associated restrictions are anticipated to result in no more than slight river bed degradation in the near term and long term. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approval of dredging activities as proposed would likely result in continued, and in some cases substantial, river bed degradation with consequent changes in water surface elevations in the LOMR, including portions of the river at Kansas City, Jefferson City, and St. Charles. Dredging activities would have direct impact on aquatic habitat and benthic substrate. Increased injury or mortality to pallid sturgeon eggs, larvae, or juveniles could occur. Denial of all permit applications would likely result in negative socioeconomic impacts to communities along the river. Under the more restrictive alternatives, production of sand and gravel from alternate sources would need to increase in order to offset the reduced supplies from the LOMR. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0567D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110050, Final EIS--1,372 pages and maps, Appendices--343 pages, February 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 35 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Noise Standards KW - Rivers KW - Sand KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality KW - Missouri KW - Missouri River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133270?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Kansas City, Missouri; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. [Part 26 of 44] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 873133266; 14806-0_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permits for commercial dredging of sand and gravel from approximately 390 miles of the Missouri River that extends from its confluence with the Mississippi River to near Rulo, Nebraska is proposed. Dredging activities have occurred on the lower Missouri River (LOMR) for the past 100 years, and previous dredging permits have been authorized for five-year periods. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Kansas City District has determined that substantial river bed degradation has occurred in portions of the LOMR and that the reaches of the river most degraded coincide with areas where commercial sand and gravel dredging has been greatest. Key issues identified during scoping include: the geomorphology of the river, including bed degradation and changes in water surface levels; effects of geomorphology on infrastructure and water supplies; economic effects of changing costs for commercial sand and gravel; impacts on the ecosystem and protected species; and recreation. The proposed action is: reauthorization by the USACE of eight existing dredging permits to six applicants; authorization of three additional proposed dredging permits; and authorization of any as yet unforeseen proposed dredging permits. Together, the dredgers propose being permitted to dredge up to 11.6 million tons of sand and gravel from the LOMR annually. Average annual dredging from the LOMR from 2004 to 2008 was 6.9 million tons. Two of the applicants propose constructing onshore sand plants to support the proposed dredging operations. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, current commercial dredging permits would expire on the extended expiration date of March 31, 2011. Alternatives A, B, and C would set allowable commercial dredging at 2.2 million tons per year, 5.1 million tons per year, and 6.9 million tons per year, respectively. The environmentally preferred alternative is a composite alternative that would include implementation of Alternative B on the St. Joseph and Waverly segments, Alternative C on the Jefferson City and St. Charles segments, and Alternative A on the Kansas City segment. The total allowable combined dredging amount would be 5.8 million tons per year. As part of the environmentally preferred alternative, it is recommended that low flow water surface elevation data should be collected every year and hydroacoustic bed elevation data surveys should be conducted every five years for the lower 498 miles of the LOMR. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continued commercial dredging would provide the essential sand and gravel components of construction materials, which are integral to the economy of the region that encompasses St. Joseph, greater Kansas City, central Missouri, and greater St. Louis. Implementation of the environmentally preferred alternative should balance the various public interests, including the need for aggregate and the need for a stable river system providing other services including water supply. The allowable levels of dredging with associated restrictions are anticipated to result in no more than slight river bed degradation in the near term and long term. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approval of dredging activities as proposed would likely result in continued, and in some cases substantial, river bed degradation with consequent changes in water surface elevations in the LOMR, including portions of the river at Kansas City, Jefferson City, and St. Charles. Dredging activities would have direct impact on aquatic habitat and benthic substrate. Increased injury or mortality to pallid sturgeon eggs, larvae, or juveniles could occur. Denial of all permit applications would likely result in negative socioeconomic impacts to communities along the river. Under the more restrictive alternatives, production of sand and gravel from alternate sources would need to increase in order to offset the reduced supplies from the LOMR. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0567D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110050, Final EIS--1,372 pages and maps, Appendices--343 pages, February 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 26 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Noise Standards KW - Rivers KW - Sand KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality KW - Missouri KW - Missouri River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133266?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Kansas City, Missouri; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. [Part 25 of 44] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 873133253; 14806-0_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permits for commercial dredging of sand and gravel from approximately 390 miles of the Missouri River that extends from its confluence with the Mississippi River to near Rulo, Nebraska is proposed. Dredging activities have occurred on the lower Missouri River (LOMR) for the past 100 years, and previous dredging permits have been authorized for five-year periods. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Kansas City District has determined that substantial river bed degradation has occurred in portions of the LOMR and that the reaches of the river most degraded coincide with areas where commercial sand and gravel dredging has been greatest. Key issues identified during scoping include: the geomorphology of the river, including bed degradation and changes in water surface levels; effects of geomorphology on infrastructure and water supplies; economic effects of changing costs for commercial sand and gravel; impacts on the ecosystem and protected species; and recreation. The proposed action is: reauthorization by the USACE of eight existing dredging permits to six applicants; authorization of three additional proposed dredging permits; and authorization of any as yet unforeseen proposed dredging permits. Together, the dredgers propose being permitted to dredge up to 11.6 million tons of sand and gravel from the LOMR annually. Average annual dredging from the LOMR from 2004 to 2008 was 6.9 million tons. Two of the applicants propose constructing onshore sand plants to support the proposed dredging operations. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, current commercial dredging permits would expire on the extended expiration date of March 31, 2011. Alternatives A, B, and C would set allowable commercial dredging at 2.2 million tons per year, 5.1 million tons per year, and 6.9 million tons per year, respectively. The environmentally preferred alternative is a composite alternative that would include implementation of Alternative B on the St. Joseph and Waverly segments, Alternative C on the Jefferson City and St. Charles segments, and Alternative A on the Kansas City segment. The total allowable combined dredging amount would be 5.8 million tons per year. As part of the environmentally preferred alternative, it is recommended that low flow water surface elevation data should be collected every year and hydroacoustic bed elevation data surveys should be conducted every five years for the lower 498 miles of the LOMR. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continued commercial dredging would provide the essential sand and gravel components of construction materials, which are integral to the economy of the region that encompasses St. Joseph, greater Kansas City, central Missouri, and greater St. Louis. Implementation of the environmentally preferred alternative should balance the various public interests, including the need for aggregate and the need for a stable river system providing other services including water supply. The allowable levels of dredging with associated restrictions are anticipated to result in no more than slight river bed degradation in the near term and long term. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approval of dredging activities as proposed would likely result in continued, and in some cases substantial, river bed degradation with consequent changes in water surface elevations in the LOMR, including portions of the river at Kansas City, Jefferson City, and St. Charles. Dredging activities would have direct impact on aquatic habitat and benthic substrate. Increased injury or mortality to pallid sturgeon eggs, larvae, or juveniles could occur. Denial of all permit applications would likely result in negative socioeconomic impacts to communities along the river. Under the more restrictive alternatives, production of sand and gravel from alternate sources would need to increase in order to offset the reduced supplies from the LOMR. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0567D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110050, Final EIS--1,372 pages and maps, Appendices--343 pages, February 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 25 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Noise Standards KW - Rivers KW - Sand KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality KW - Missouri KW - Missouri River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133253?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Kansas City, Missouri; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. [Part 24 of 44] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 873133229; 14806-0_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permits for commercial dredging of sand and gravel from approximately 390 miles of the Missouri River that extends from its confluence with the Mississippi River to near Rulo, Nebraska is proposed. Dredging activities have occurred on the lower Missouri River (LOMR) for the past 100 years, and previous dredging permits have been authorized for five-year periods. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Kansas City District has determined that substantial river bed degradation has occurred in portions of the LOMR and that the reaches of the river most degraded coincide with areas where commercial sand and gravel dredging has been greatest. Key issues identified during scoping include: the geomorphology of the river, including bed degradation and changes in water surface levels; effects of geomorphology on infrastructure and water supplies; economic effects of changing costs for commercial sand and gravel; impacts on the ecosystem and protected species; and recreation. The proposed action is: reauthorization by the USACE of eight existing dredging permits to six applicants; authorization of three additional proposed dredging permits; and authorization of any as yet unforeseen proposed dredging permits. Together, the dredgers propose being permitted to dredge up to 11.6 million tons of sand and gravel from the LOMR annually. Average annual dredging from the LOMR from 2004 to 2008 was 6.9 million tons. Two of the applicants propose constructing onshore sand plants to support the proposed dredging operations. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, current commercial dredging permits would expire on the extended expiration date of March 31, 2011. Alternatives A, B, and C would set allowable commercial dredging at 2.2 million tons per year, 5.1 million tons per year, and 6.9 million tons per year, respectively. The environmentally preferred alternative is a composite alternative that would include implementation of Alternative B on the St. Joseph and Waverly segments, Alternative C on the Jefferson City and St. Charles segments, and Alternative A on the Kansas City segment. The total allowable combined dredging amount would be 5.8 million tons per year. As part of the environmentally preferred alternative, it is recommended that low flow water surface elevation data should be collected every year and hydroacoustic bed elevation data surveys should be conducted every five years for the lower 498 miles of the LOMR. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continued commercial dredging would provide the essential sand and gravel components of construction materials, which are integral to the economy of the region that encompasses St. Joseph, greater Kansas City, central Missouri, and greater St. Louis. Implementation of the environmentally preferred alternative should balance the various public interests, including the need for aggregate and the need for a stable river system providing other services including water supply. The allowable levels of dredging with associated restrictions are anticipated to result in no more than slight river bed degradation in the near term and long term. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approval of dredging activities as proposed would likely result in continued, and in some cases substantial, river bed degradation with consequent changes in water surface elevations in the LOMR, including portions of the river at Kansas City, Jefferson City, and St. Charles. Dredging activities would have direct impact on aquatic habitat and benthic substrate. Increased injury or mortality to pallid sturgeon eggs, larvae, or juveniles could occur. Denial of all permit applications would likely result in negative socioeconomic impacts to communities along the river. Under the more restrictive alternatives, production of sand and gravel from alternate sources would need to increase in order to offset the reduced supplies from the LOMR. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0567D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110050, Final EIS--1,372 pages and maps, Appendices--343 pages, February 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 24 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Noise Standards KW - Rivers KW - Sand KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality KW - Missouri KW - Missouri River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133229?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Kansas City, Missouri; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. [Part 23 of 44] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 873133221; 14806-0_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permits for commercial dredging of sand and gravel from approximately 390 miles of the Missouri River that extends from its confluence with the Mississippi River to near Rulo, Nebraska is proposed. Dredging activities have occurred on the lower Missouri River (LOMR) for the past 100 years, and previous dredging permits have been authorized for five-year periods. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Kansas City District has determined that substantial river bed degradation has occurred in portions of the LOMR and that the reaches of the river most degraded coincide with areas where commercial sand and gravel dredging has been greatest. Key issues identified during scoping include: the geomorphology of the river, including bed degradation and changes in water surface levels; effects of geomorphology on infrastructure and water supplies; economic effects of changing costs for commercial sand and gravel; impacts on the ecosystem and protected species; and recreation. The proposed action is: reauthorization by the USACE of eight existing dredging permits to six applicants; authorization of three additional proposed dredging permits; and authorization of any as yet unforeseen proposed dredging permits. Together, the dredgers propose being permitted to dredge up to 11.6 million tons of sand and gravel from the LOMR annually. Average annual dredging from the LOMR from 2004 to 2008 was 6.9 million tons. Two of the applicants propose constructing onshore sand plants to support the proposed dredging operations. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, current commercial dredging permits would expire on the extended expiration date of March 31, 2011. Alternatives A, B, and C would set allowable commercial dredging at 2.2 million tons per year, 5.1 million tons per year, and 6.9 million tons per year, respectively. The environmentally preferred alternative is a composite alternative that would include implementation of Alternative B on the St. Joseph and Waverly segments, Alternative C on the Jefferson City and St. Charles segments, and Alternative A on the Kansas City segment. The total allowable combined dredging amount would be 5.8 million tons per year. As part of the environmentally preferred alternative, it is recommended that low flow water surface elevation data should be collected every year and hydroacoustic bed elevation data surveys should be conducted every five years for the lower 498 miles of the LOMR. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continued commercial dredging would provide the essential sand and gravel components of construction materials, which are integral to the economy of the region that encompasses St. Joseph, greater Kansas City, central Missouri, and greater St. Louis. Implementation of the environmentally preferred alternative should balance the various public interests, including the need for aggregate and the need for a stable river system providing other services including water supply. The allowable levels of dredging with associated restrictions are anticipated to result in no more than slight river bed degradation in the near term and long term. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approval of dredging activities as proposed would likely result in continued, and in some cases substantial, river bed degradation with consequent changes in water surface elevations in the LOMR, including portions of the river at Kansas City, Jefferson City, and St. Charles. Dredging activities would have direct impact on aquatic habitat and benthic substrate. Increased injury or mortality to pallid sturgeon eggs, larvae, or juveniles could occur. Denial of all permit applications would likely result in negative socioeconomic impacts to communities along the river. Under the more restrictive alternatives, production of sand and gravel from alternate sources would need to increase in order to offset the reduced supplies from the LOMR. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0567D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110050, Final EIS--1,372 pages and maps, Appendices--343 pages, February 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 23 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Noise Standards KW - Rivers KW - Sand KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality KW - Missouri KW - Missouri River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133221?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Kansas City, Missouri; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. [Part 19 of 44] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 873133210; 14806-0_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permits for commercial dredging of sand and gravel from approximately 390 miles of the Missouri River that extends from its confluence with the Mississippi River to near Rulo, Nebraska is proposed. Dredging activities have occurred on the lower Missouri River (LOMR) for the past 100 years, and previous dredging permits have been authorized for five-year periods. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Kansas City District has determined that substantial river bed degradation has occurred in portions of the LOMR and that the reaches of the river most degraded coincide with areas where commercial sand and gravel dredging has been greatest. Key issues identified during scoping include: the geomorphology of the river, including bed degradation and changes in water surface levels; effects of geomorphology on infrastructure and water supplies; economic effects of changing costs for commercial sand and gravel; impacts on the ecosystem and protected species; and recreation. The proposed action is: reauthorization by the USACE of eight existing dredging permits to six applicants; authorization of three additional proposed dredging permits; and authorization of any as yet unforeseen proposed dredging permits. Together, the dredgers propose being permitted to dredge up to 11.6 million tons of sand and gravel from the LOMR annually. Average annual dredging from the LOMR from 2004 to 2008 was 6.9 million tons. Two of the applicants propose constructing onshore sand plants to support the proposed dredging operations. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, current commercial dredging permits would expire on the extended expiration date of March 31, 2011. Alternatives A, B, and C would set allowable commercial dredging at 2.2 million tons per year, 5.1 million tons per year, and 6.9 million tons per year, respectively. The environmentally preferred alternative is a composite alternative that would include implementation of Alternative B on the St. Joseph and Waverly segments, Alternative C on the Jefferson City and St. Charles segments, and Alternative A on the Kansas City segment. The total allowable combined dredging amount would be 5.8 million tons per year. As part of the environmentally preferred alternative, it is recommended that low flow water surface elevation data should be collected every year and hydroacoustic bed elevation data surveys should be conducted every five years for the lower 498 miles of the LOMR. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continued commercial dredging would provide the essential sand and gravel components of construction materials, which are integral to the economy of the region that encompasses St. Joseph, greater Kansas City, central Missouri, and greater St. Louis. Implementation of the environmentally preferred alternative should balance the various public interests, including the need for aggregate and the need for a stable river system providing other services including water supply. The allowable levels of dredging with associated restrictions are anticipated to result in no more than slight river bed degradation in the near term and long term. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approval of dredging activities as proposed would likely result in continued, and in some cases substantial, river bed degradation with consequent changes in water surface elevations in the LOMR, including portions of the river at Kansas City, Jefferson City, and St. Charles. Dredging activities would have direct impact on aquatic habitat and benthic substrate. Increased injury or mortality to pallid sturgeon eggs, larvae, or juveniles could occur. Denial of all permit applications would likely result in negative socioeconomic impacts to communities along the river. Under the more restrictive alternatives, production of sand and gravel from alternate sources would need to increase in order to offset the reduced supplies from the LOMR. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0567D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110050, Final EIS--1,372 pages and maps, Appendices--343 pages, February 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 19 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Noise Standards KW - Rivers KW - Sand KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality KW - Missouri KW - Missouri River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133210?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Kansas City, Missouri; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. [Part 18 of 44] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 873133201; 14806-0_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permits for commercial dredging of sand and gravel from approximately 390 miles of the Missouri River that extends from its confluence with the Mississippi River to near Rulo, Nebraska is proposed. Dredging activities have occurred on the lower Missouri River (LOMR) for the past 100 years, and previous dredging permits have been authorized for five-year periods. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Kansas City District has determined that substantial river bed degradation has occurred in portions of the LOMR and that the reaches of the river most degraded coincide with areas where commercial sand and gravel dredging has been greatest. Key issues identified during scoping include: the geomorphology of the river, including bed degradation and changes in water surface levels; effects of geomorphology on infrastructure and water supplies; economic effects of changing costs for commercial sand and gravel; impacts on the ecosystem and protected species; and recreation. The proposed action is: reauthorization by the USACE of eight existing dredging permits to six applicants; authorization of three additional proposed dredging permits; and authorization of any as yet unforeseen proposed dredging permits. Together, the dredgers propose being permitted to dredge up to 11.6 million tons of sand and gravel from the LOMR annually. Average annual dredging from the LOMR from 2004 to 2008 was 6.9 million tons. Two of the applicants propose constructing onshore sand plants to support the proposed dredging operations. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, current commercial dredging permits would expire on the extended expiration date of March 31, 2011. Alternatives A, B, and C would set allowable commercial dredging at 2.2 million tons per year, 5.1 million tons per year, and 6.9 million tons per year, respectively. The environmentally preferred alternative is a composite alternative that would include implementation of Alternative B on the St. Joseph and Waverly segments, Alternative C on the Jefferson City and St. Charles segments, and Alternative A on the Kansas City segment. The total allowable combined dredging amount would be 5.8 million tons per year. As part of the environmentally preferred alternative, it is recommended that low flow water surface elevation data should be collected every year and hydroacoustic bed elevation data surveys should be conducted every five years for the lower 498 miles of the LOMR. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continued commercial dredging would provide the essential sand and gravel components of construction materials, which are integral to the economy of the region that encompasses St. Joseph, greater Kansas City, central Missouri, and greater St. Louis. Implementation of the environmentally preferred alternative should balance the various public interests, including the need for aggregate and the need for a stable river system providing other services including water supply. The allowable levels of dredging with associated restrictions are anticipated to result in no more than slight river bed degradation in the near term and long term. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approval of dredging activities as proposed would likely result in continued, and in some cases substantial, river bed degradation with consequent changes in water surface elevations in the LOMR, including portions of the river at Kansas City, Jefferson City, and St. Charles. Dredging activities would have direct impact on aquatic habitat and benthic substrate. Increased injury or mortality to pallid sturgeon eggs, larvae, or juveniles could occur. Denial of all permit applications would likely result in negative socioeconomic impacts to communities along the river. Under the more restrictive alternatives, production of sand and gravel from alternate sources would need to increase in order to offset the reduced supplies from the LOMR. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0567D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110050, Final EIS--1,372 pages and maps, Appendices--343 pages, February 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 18 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Noise Standards KW - Rivers KW - Sand KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality KW - Missouri KW - Missouri River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133201?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Kansas City, Missouri; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. [Part 17 of 44] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 873133196; 14806-0_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permits for commercial dredging of sand and gravel from approximately 390 miles of the Missouri River that extends from its confluence with the Mississippi River to near Rulo, Nebraska is proposed. Dredging activities have occurred on the lower Missouri River (LOMR) for the past 100 years, and previous dredging permits have been authorized for five-year periods. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Kansas City District has determined that substantial river bed degradation has occurred in portions of the LOMR and that the reaches of the river most degraded coincide with areas where commercial sand and gravel dredging has been greatest. Key issues identified during scoping include: the geomorphology of the river, including bed degradation and changes in water surface levels; effects of geomorphology on infrastructure and water supplies; economic effects of changing costs for commercial sand and gravel; impacts on the ecosystem and protected species; and recreation. The proposed action is: reauthorization by the USACE of eight existing dredging permits to six applicants; authorization of three additional proposed dredging permits; and authorization of any as yet unforeseen proposed dredging permits. Together, the dredgers propose being permitted to dredge up to 11.6 million tons of sand and gravel from the LOMR annually. Average annual dredging from the LOMR from 2004 to 2008 was 6.9 million tons. Two of the applicants propose constructing onshore sand plants to support the proposed dredging operations. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, current commercial dredging permits would expire on the extended expiration date of March 31, 2011. Alternatives A, B, and C would set allowable commercial dredging at 2.2 million tons per year, 5.1 million tons per year, and 6.9 million tons per year, respectively. The environmentally preferred alternative is a composite alternative that would include implementation of Alternative B on the St. Joseph and Waverly segments, Alternative C on the Jefferson City and St. Charles segments, and Alternative A on the Kansas City segment. The total allowable combined dredging amount would be 5.8 million tons per year. As part of the environmentally preferred alternative, it is recommended that low flow water surface elevation data should be collected every year and hydroacoustic bed elevation data surveys should be conducted every five years for the lower 498 miles of the LOMR. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continued commercial dredging would provide the essential sand and gravel components of construction materials, which are integral to the economy of the region that encompasses St. Joseph, greater Kansas City, central Missouri, and greater St. Louis. Implementation of the environmentally preferred alternative should balance the various public interests, including the need for aggregate and the need for a stable river system providing other services including water supply. The allowable levels of dredging with associated restrictions are anticipated to result in no more than slight river bed degradation in the near term and long term. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approval of dredging activities as proposed would likely result in continued, and in some cases substantial, river bed degradation with consequent changes in water surface elevations in the LOMR, including portions of the river at Kansas City, Jefferson City, and St. Charles. Dredging activities would have direct impact on aquatic habitat and benthic substrate. Increased injury or mortality to pallid sturgeon eggs, larvae, or juveniles could occur. Denial of all permit applications would likely result in negative socioeconomic impacts to communities along the river. Under the more restrictive alternatives, production of sand and gravel from alternate sources would need to increase in order to offset the reduced supplies from the LOMR. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0567D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110050, Final EIS--1,372 pages and maps, Appendices--343 pages, February 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 17 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Noise Standards KW - Rivers KW - Sand KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality KW - Missouri KW - Missouri River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133196?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Kansas City, Missouri; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. [Part 1 of 44] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 873133187; 14806-0_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permits for commercial dredging of sand and gravel from approximately 390 miles of the Missouri River that extends from its confluence with the Mississippi River to near Rulo, Nebraska is proposed. Dredging activities have occurred on the lower Missouri River (LOMR) for the past 100 years, and previous dredging permits have been authorized for five-year periods. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Kansas City District has determined that substantial river bed degradation has occurred in portions of the LOMR and that the reaches of the river most degraded coincide with areas where commercial sand and gravel dredging has been greatest. Key issues identified during scoping include: the geomorphology of the river, including bed degradation and changes in water surface levels; effects of geomorphology on infrastructure and water supplies; economic effects of changing costs for commercial sand and gravel; impacts on the ecosystem and protected species; and recreation. The proposed action is: reauthorization by the USACE of eight existing dredging permits to six applicants; authorization of three additional proposed dredging permits; and authorization of any as yet unforeseen proposed dredging permits. Together, the dredgers propose being permitted to dredge up to 11.6 million tons of sand and gravel from the LOMR annually. Average annual dredging from the LOMR from 2004 to 2008 was 6.9 million tons. Two of the applicants propose constructing onshore sand plants to support the proposed dredging operations. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, current commercial dredging permits would expire on the extended expiration date of March 31, 2011. Alternatives A, B, and C would set allowable commercial dredging at 2.2 million tons per year, 5.1 million tons per year, and 6.9 million tons per year, respectively. The environmentally preferred alternative is a composite alternative that would include implementation of Alternative B on the St. Joseph and Waverly segments, Alternative C on the Jefferson City and St. Charles segments, and Alternative A on the Kansas City segment. The total allowable combined dredging amount would be 5.8 million tons per year. As part of the environmentally preferred alternative, it is recommended that low flow water surface elevation data should be collected every year and hydroacoustic bed elevation data surveys should be conducted every five years for the lower 498 miles of the LOMR. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continued commercial dredging would provide the essential sand and gravel components of construction materials, which are integral to the economy of the region that encompasses St. Joseph, greater Kansas City, central Missouri, and greater St. Louis. Implementation of the environmentally preferred alternative should balance the various public interests, including the need for aggregate and the need for a stable river system providing other services including water supply. The allowable levels of dredging with associated restrictions are anticipated to result in no more than slight river bed degradation in the near term and long term. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approval of dredging activities as proposed would likely result in continued, and in some cases substantial, river bed degradation with consequent changes in water surface elevations in the LOMR, including portions of the river at Kansas City, Jefferson City, and St. Charles. Dredging activities would have direct impact on aquatic habitat and benthic substrate. Increased injury or mortality to pallid sturgeon eggs, larvae, or juveniles could occur. Denial of all permit applications would likely result in negative socioeconomic impacts to communities along the river. Under the more restrictive alternatives, production of sand and gravel from alternate sources would need to increase in order to offset the reduced supplies from the LOMR. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0567D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110050, Final EIS--1,372 pages and maps, Appendices--343 pages, February 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Noise Standards KW - Rivers KW - Sand KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality KW - Missouri KW - Missouri River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133187?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Kansas City, Missouri; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OHIO RIVER MAINSTEM SYSTEMS STUDY, SYSTEM INVESTMENT PLAN, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, KENTUCKY, OHIO, PENNSYLVANIA, AND WEST VIRGINIA. [Part 4 of 4] T2 - OHIO RIVER MAINSTEM SYSTEMS STUDY, SYSTEM INVESTMENT PLAN, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, KENTUCKY, OHIO, PENNSYLVANIA, AND WEST VIRGINIA. AN - 873133123; 14809-3_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a system investment plan (SIP) for the 981-mile Ohio River in Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, and Pennsylvania is proposed to maintain safe, environmentally sustainable, and reliable navigation along the river from 2010 to 2070. The Ohio River mainstem is the principal artery of the Ohio River System (ORS), which also includes its navigable tributaries, the Allegheny, Monongahela, Kanawha, Big Sandy, Kentucky, Green, Tennessee, and Cumberland rivers. Users of the ORS ship 270 million tons of commodities worth over $30 billion annually, resulting in a transportation savings of $2.0 billion. The SIP addresses the operation and maintenance, rehabilitation, and construction reinvestment needs at the 19 navigation lock and dam sites on the mainstem. The SIP was developed to evaluate system-wide priorities and impacts; it does not recommend specific projects for authorization by Congress. A major focus is the comprehensive Cumulative Effects Assessment that evaluates impacts from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions falling into 10 categories of valued environmental components. For many of the recommended actions, future site-specific studies would be required prior to project approval or recommendation for authorization. Navigation investment alternatives were formulated based on five possible traffic forecast scenarios associated with utility coal, air quality compliance policy, and economic growth. Ecosystem sustainability alternatives were formulated from measures identified during facilitated group discussions that focused on the highest priority needs to enhance aquatic and riparian ecosystem sustainability. Navigation-related recommendations in the SIP would provide for a mix of investments ranging from reactive maintenance (replacement of lock components as failure occurred) through advance maintenance (replacement of lock components before failure) and major rehabilitation (bundling of multiple replacements into a rehabilitation component) to lock modernization (new lock chambers at Emsworth, Dashields, and Montgomery locks and dams on the upper Ohio River). Ecosystem-related recommendations would provide for the initiation of the previously authorized Ohio River Ecosystem Restoration Program and planning and implementation of additional measures to improve ecosystem sustainability in collaboration with other interests. In addition to the action alternatives, this final programmatic EIS considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred plan includes all features of the best navigation (National Economic Development Plan) and environmental sustainability (National Environmental Sustainability Plan) investment plans. Specific recommendations include: increased operation and maintenance investments to maximize economic efficiency; provision of optimal funding for the Upper Ohio River Study currently underway; initiation of main chamber rehabilitation studies for Meldahl, Hannibal, and Myers as soon as possible; initiation of main chamber rehabilitation study for Pike Island in the near term; completion of work on the Markland gates as soon as possible; and initiation of the Ohio River Basin Comprehensive Study. All detailed evaluation of site-specific impacts for follow on studies and other actions would be tiered from this SIP/programmatic EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The SIP would provide a balance between economic development and ecological preservation and enhancement along the river corridor. By maintaining a long-term comprehensive program for maintaining a viable navigation system on the main stem, the project would allow continued development of industries dependent on the ORS for transportation and continue to support substantial direct and indirect employment along the associated rivers. Locking delays expected due to increased traffic and inadequate and deteriorating infrastructure would be reduced or eliminated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All plans would have some degree of construction impacts and would affect fish spawning areas, mussel habitat, and riparian and floodplain resources, including wetlands and bottomland forest areas. Wildlife and fish habitat would be lost and habitat units available would decline somewhat. The operation of locks and dams would continue to alter river hydrology in both upstream and downstream reaches of the river. LEGAL MANDATES: Public Works Appropriations (P.L. 94-355) and River and Harbor Act of 1902. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0451D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110053, Final EIS--535 pages, Engineering and Economic Appendices--437 pages, Environmental Appendix Volume 1--762 pages, Environmental Appendix Volume 2--1,129 pages, February 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Water KW - Bank Protection KW - Barges KW - Dams KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Fish KW - Forests KW - Navigation KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Shellfish KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Illinois KW - Indiana KW - Kentucky KW - Ohio KW - Ohio River KW - Pennsylvania KW - West Virginia KW - Public Works Appropriations, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1902, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133123?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OHIO+RIVER+MAINSTEM+SYSTEMS+STUDY%2C+SYSTEM+INVESTMENT+PLAN%2C+ILLINOIS%2C+INDIANA%2C+KENTUCKY%2C+OHIO%2C+PENNSYLVANIA%2C+AND+WEST+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=OHIO+RIVER+MAINSTEM+SYSTEMS+STUDY%2C+SYSTEM+INVESTMENT+PLAN%2C+ILLINOIS%2C+INDIANA%2C+KENTUCKY%2C+OHIO%2C+PENNSYLVANIA%2C+AND+WEST+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. [Part 43 of 44] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 873132665; 14806-0_0043 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permits for commercial dredging of sand and gravel from approximately 390 miles of the Missouri River that extends from its confluence with the Mississippi River to near Rulo, Nebraska is proposed. Dredging activities have occurred on the lower Missouri River (LOMR) for the past 100 years, and previous dredging permits have been authorized for five-year periods. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Kansas City District has determined that substantial river bed degradation has occurred in portions of the LOMR and that the reaches of the river most degraded coincide with areas where commercial sand and gravel dredging has been greatest. Key issues identified during scoping include: the geomorphology of the river, including bed degradation and changes in water surface levels; effects of geomorphology on infrastructure and water supplies; economic effects of changing costs for commercial sand and gravel; impacts on the ecosystem and protected species; and recreation. The proposed action is: reauthorization by the USACE of eight existing dredging permits to six applicants; authorization of three additional proposed dredging permits; and authorization of any as yet unforeseen proposed dredging permits. Together, the dredgers propose being permitted to dredge up to 11.6 million tons of sand and gravel from the LOMR annually. Average annual dredging from the LOMR from 2004 to 2008 was 6.9 million tons. Two of the applicants propose constructing onshore sand plants to support the proposed dredging operations. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, current commercial dredging permits would expire on the extended expiration date of March 31, 2011. Alternatives A, B, and C would set allowable commercial dredging at 2.2 million tons per year, 5.1 million tons per year, and 6.9 million tons per year, respectively. The environmentally preferred alternative is a composite alternative that would include implementation of Alternative B on the St. Joseph and Waverly segments, Alternative C on the Jefferson City and St. Charles segments, and Alternative A on the Kansas City segment. The total allowable combined dredging amount would be 5.8 million tons per year. As part of the environmentally preferred alternative, it is recommended that low flow water surface elevation data should be collected every year and hydroacoustic bed elevation data surveys should be conducted every five years for the lower 498 miles of the LOMR. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continued commercial dredging would provide the essential sand and gravel components of construction materials, which are integral to the economy of the region that encompasses St. Joseph, greater Kansas City, central Missouri, and greater St. Louis. Implementation of the environmentally preferred alternative should balance the various public interests, including the need for aggregate and the need for a stable river system providing other services including water supply. The allowable levels of dredging with associated restrictions are anticipated to result in no more than slight river bed degradation in the near term and long term. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approval of dredging activities as proposed would likely result in continued, and in some cases substantial, river bed degradation with consequent changes in water surface elevations in the LOMR, including portions of the river at Kansas City, Jefferson City, and St. Charles. Dredging activities would have direct impact on aquatic habitat and benthic substrate. Increased injury or mortality to pallid sturgeon eggs, larvae, or juveniles could occur. Denial of all permit applications would likely result in negative socioeconomic impacts to communities along the river. Under the more restrictive alternatives, production of sand and gravel from alternate sources would need to increase in order to offset the reduced supplies from the LOMR. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0567D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110050, Final EIS--1,372 pages and maps, Appendices--343 pages, February 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 43 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Noise Standards KW - Rivers KW - Sand KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality KW - Missouri KW - Missouri River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132665?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Kansas City, Missouri; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. [Part 42 of 44] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 873132659; 14806-0_0042 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permits for commercial dredging of sand and gravel from approximately 390 miles of the Missouri River that extends from its confluence with the Mississippi River to near Rulo, Nebraska is proposed. Dredging activities have occurred on the lower Missouri River (LOMR) for the past 100 years, and previous dredging permits have been authorized for five-year periods. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Kansas City District has determined that substantial river bed degradation has occurred in portions of the LOMR and that the reaches of the river most degraded coincide with areas where commercial sand and gravel dredging has been greatest. Key issues identified during scoping include: the geomorphology of the river, including bed degradation and changes in water surface levels; effects of geomorphology on infrastructure and water supplies; economic effects of changing costs for commercial sand and gravel; impacts on the ecosystem and protected species; and recreation. The proposed action is: reauthorization by the USACE of eight existing dredging permits to six applicants; authorization of three additional proposed dredging permits; and authorization of any as yet unforeseen proposed dredging permits. Together, the dredgers propose being permitted to dredge up to 11.6 million tons of sand and gravel from the LOMR annually. Average annual dredging from the LOMR from 2004 to 2008 was 6.9 million tons. Two of the applicants propose constructing onshore sand plants to support the proposed dredging operations. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, current commercial dredging permits would expire on the extended expiration date of March 31, 2011. Alternatives A, B, and C would set allowable commercial dredging at 2.2 million tons per year, 5.1 million tons per year, and 6.9 million tons per year, respectively. The environmentally preferred alternative is a composite alternative that would include implementation of Alternative B on the St. Joseph and Waverly segments, Alternative C on the Jefferson City and St. Charles segments, and Alternative A on the Kansas City segment. The total allowable combined dredging amount would be 5.8 million tons per year. As part of the environmentally preferred alternative, it is recommended that low flow water surface elevation data should be collected every year and hydroacoustic bed elevation data surveys should be conducted every five years for the lower 498 miles of the LOMR. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continued commercial dredging would provide the essential sand and gravel components of construction materials, which are integral to the economy of the region that encompasses St. Joseph, greater Kansas City, central Missouri, and greater St. Louis. Implementation of the environmentally preferred alternative should balance the various public interests, including the need for aggregate and the need for a stable river system providing other services including water supply. The allowable levels of dredging with associated restrictions are anticipated to result in no more than slight river bed degradation in the near term and long term. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approval of dredging activities as proposed would likely result in continued, and in some cases substantial, river bed degradation with consequent changes in water surface elevations in the LOMR, including portions of the river at Kansas City, Jefferson City, and St. Charles. Dredging activities would have direct impact on aquatic habitat and benthic substrate. Increased injury or mortality to pallid sturgeon eggs, larvae, or juveniles could occur. Denial of all permit applications would likely result in negative socioeconomic impacts to communities along the river. Under the more restrictive alternatives, production of sand and gravel from alternate sources would need to increase in order to offset the reduced supplies from the LOMR. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0567D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110050, Final EIS--1,372 pages and maps, Appendices--343 pages, February 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 42 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Noise Standards KW - Rivers KW - Sand KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality KW - Missouri KW - Missouri River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132659?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Kansas City, Missouri; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. [Part 30 of 44] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 873132654; 14806-0_0030 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permits for commercial dredging of sand and gravel from approximately 390 miles of the Missouri River that extends from its confluence with the Mississippi River to near Rulo, Nebraska is proposed. Dredging activities have occurred on the lower Missouri River (LOMR) for the past 100 years, and previous dredging permits have been authorized for five-year periods. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Kansas City District has determined that substantial river bed degradation has occurred in portions of the LOMR and that the reaches of the river most degraded coincide with areas where commercial sand and gravel dredging has been greatest. Key issues identified during scoping include: the geomorphology of the river, including bed degradation and changes in water surface levels; effects of geomorphology on infrastructure and water supplies; economic effects of changing costs for commercial sand and gravel; impacts on the ecosystem and protected species; and recreation. The proposed action is: reauthorization by the USACE of eight existing dredging permits to six applicants; authorization of three additional proposed dredging permits; and authorization of any as yet unforeseen proposed dredging permits. Together, the dredgers propose being permitted to dredge up to 11.6 million tons of sand and gravel from the LOMR annually. Average annual dredging from the LOMR from 2004 to 2008 was 6.9 million tons. Two of the applicants propose constructing onshore sand plants to support the proposed dredging operations. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, current commercial dredging permits would expire on the extended expiration date of March 31, 2011. Alternatives A, B, and C would set allowable commercial dredging at 2.2 million tons per year, 5.1 million tons per year, and 6.9 million tons per year, respectively. The environmentally preferred alternative is a composite alternative that would include implementation of Alternative B on the St. Joseph and Waverly segments, Alternative C on the Jefferson City and St. Charles segments, and Alternative A on the Kansas City segment. The total allowable combined dredging amount would be 5.8 million tons per year. As part of the environmentally preferred alternative, it is recommended that low flow water surface elevation data should be collected every year and hydroacoustic bed elevation data surveys should be conducted every five years for the lower 498 miles of the LOMR. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continued commercial dredging would provide the essential sand and gravel components of construction materials, which are integral to the economy of the region that encompasses St. Joseph, greater Kansas City, central Missouri, and greater St. Louis. Implementation of the environmentally preferred alternative should balance the various public interests, including the need for aggregate and the need for a stable river system providing other services including water supply. The allowable levels of dredging with associated restrictions are anticipated to result in no more than slight river bed degradation in the near term and long term. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approval of dredging activities as proposed would likely result in continued, and in some cases substantial, river bed degradation with consequent changes in water surface elevations in the LOMR, including portions of the river at Kansas City, Jefferson City, and St. Charles. Dredging activities would have direct impact on aquatic habitat and benthic substrate. Increased injury or mortality to pallid sturgeon eggs, larvae, or juveniles could occur. Denial of all permit applications would likely result in negative socioeconomic impacts to communities along the river. Under the more restrictive alternatives, production of sand and gravel from alternate sources would need to increase in order to offset the reduced supplies from the LOMR. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0567D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110050, Final EIS--1,372 pages and maps, Appendices--343 pages, February 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 30 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Noise Standards KW - Rivers KW - Sand KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality KW - Missouri KW - Missouri River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132654?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Kansas City, Missouri; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. [Part 29 of 44] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 873132648; 14806-0_0029 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permits for commercial dredging of sand and gravel from approximately 390 miles of the Missouri River that extends from its confluence with the Mississippi River to near Rulo, Nebraska is proposed. Dredging activities have occurred on the lower Missouri River (LOMR) for the past 100 years, and previous dredging permits have been authorized for five-year periods. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Kansas City District has determined that substantial river bed degradation has occurred in portions of the LOMR and that the reaches of the river most degraded coincide with areas where commercial sand and gravel dredging has been greatest. Key issues identified during scoping include: the geomorphology of the river, including bed degradation and changes in water surface levels; effects of geomorphology on infrastructure and water supplies; economic effects of changing costs for commercial sand and gravel; impacts on the ecosystem and protected species; and recreation. The proposed action is: reauthorization by the USACE of eight existing dredging permits to six applicants; authorization of three additional proposed dredging permits; and authorization of any as yet unforeseen proposed dredging permits. Together, the dredgers propose being permitted to dredge up to 11.6 million tons of sand and gravel from the LOMR annually. Average annual dredging from the LOMR from 2004 to 2008 was 6.9 million tons. Two of the applicants propose constructing onshore sand plants to support the proposed dredging operations. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, current commercial dredging permits would expire on the extended expiration date of March 31, 2011. Alternatives A, B, and C would set allowable commercial dredging at 2.2 million tons per year, 5.1 million tons per year, and 6.9 million tons per year, respectively. The environmentally preferred alternative is a composite alternative that would include implementation of Alternative B on the St. Joseph and Waverly segments, Alternative C on the Jefferson City and St. Charles segments, and Alternative A on the Kansas City segment. The total allowable combined dredging amount would be 5.8 million tons per year. As part of the environmentally preferred alternative, it is recommended that low flow water surface elevation data should be collected every year and hydroacoustic bed elevation data surveys should be conducted every five years for the lower 498 miles of the LOMR. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continued commercial dredging would provide the essential sand and gravel components of construction materials, which are integral to the economy of the region that encompasses St. Joseph, greater Kansas City, central Missouri, and greater St. Louis. Implementation of the environmentally preferred alternative should balance the various public interests, including the need for aggregate and the need for a stable river system providing other services including water supply. The allowable levels of dredging with associated restrictions are anticipated to result in no more than slight river bed degradation in the near term and long term. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approval of dredging activities as proposed would likely result in continued, and in some cases substantial, river bed degradation with consequent changes in water surface elevations in the LOMR, including portions of the river at Kansas City, Jefferson City, and St. Charles. Dredging activities would have direct impact on aquatic habitat and benthic substrate. Increased injury or mortality to pallid sturgeon eggs, larvae, or juveniles could occur. Denial of all permit applications would likely result in negative socioeconomic impacts to communities along the river. Under the more restrictive alternatives, production of sand and gravel from alternate sources would need to increase in order to offset the reduced supplies from the LOMR. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0567D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110050, Final EIS--1,372 pages and maps, Appendices--343 pages, February 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 29 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Noise Standards KW - Rivers KW - Sand KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality KW - Missouri KW - Missouri River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132648?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Kansas City, Missouri; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. [Part 41 of 44] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 873132647; 14806-0_0041 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permits for commercial dredging of sand and gravel from approximately 390 miles of the Missouri River that extends from its confluence with the Mississippi River to near Rulo, Nebraska is proposed. Dredging activities have occurred on the lower Missouri River (LOMR) for the past 100 years, and previous dredging permits have been authorized for five-year periods. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Kansas City District has determined that substantial river bed degradation has occurred in portions of the LOMR and that the reaches of the river most degraded coincide with areas where commercial sand and gravel dredging has been greatest. Key issues identified during scoping include: the geomorphology of the river, including bed degradation and changes in water surface levels; effects of geomorphology on infrastructure and water supplies; economic effects of changing costs for commercial sand and gravel; impacts on the ecosystem and protected species; and recreation. The proposed action is: reauthorization by the USACE of eight existing dredging permits to six applicants; authorization of three additional proposed dredging permits; and authorization of any as yet unforeseen proposed dredging permits. Together, the dredgers propose being permitted to dredge up to 11.6 million tons of sand and gravel from the LOMR annually. Average annual dredging from the LOMR from 2004 to 2008 was 6.9 million tons. Two of the applicants propose constructing onshore sand plants to support the proposed dredging operations. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, current commercial dredging permits would expire on the extended expiration date of March 31, 2011. Alternatives A, B, and C would set allowable commercial dredging at 2.2 million tons per year, 5.1 million tons per year, and 6.9 million tons per year, respectively. The environmentally preferred alternative is a composite alternative that would include implementation of Alternative B on the St. Joseph and Waverly segments, Alternative C on the Jefferson City and St. Charles segments, and Alternative A on the Kansas City segment. The total allowable combined dredging amount would be 5.8 million tons per year. As part of the environmentally preferred alternative, it is recommended that low flow water surface elevation data should be collected every year and hydroacoustic bed elevation data surveys should be conducted every five years for the lower 498 miles of the LOMR. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continued commercial dredging would provide the essential sand and gravel components of construction materials, which are integral to the economy of the region that encompasses St. Joseph, greater Kansas City, central Missouri, and greater St. Louis. Implementation of the environmentally preferred alternative should balance the various public interests, including the need for aggregate and the need for a stable river system providing other services including water supply. The allowable levels of dredging with associated restrictions are anticipated to result in no more than slight river bed degradation in the near term and long term. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approval of dredging activities as proposed would likely result in continued, and in some cases substantial, river bed degradation with consequent changes in water surface elevations in the LOMR, including portions of the river at Kansas City, Jefferson City, and St. Charles. Dredging activities would have direct impact on aquatic habitat and benthic substrate. Increased injury or mortality to pallid sturgeon eggs, larvae, or juveniles could occur. Denial of all permit applications would likely result in negative socioeconomic impacts to communities along the river. Under the more restrictive alternatives, production of sand and gravel from alternate sources would need to increase in order to offset the reduced supplies from the LOMR. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0567D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110050, Final EIS--1,372 pages and maps, Appendices--343 pages, February 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 41 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Noise Standards KW - Rivers KW - Sand KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality KW - Missouri KW - Missouri River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132647?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Kansas City, Missouri; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. [Part 22 of 44] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 873132644; 14806-0_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permits for commercial dredging of sand and gravel from approximately 390 miles of the Missouri River that extends from its confluence with the Mississippi River to near Rulo, Nebraska is proposed. Dredging activities have occurred on the lower Missouri River (LOMR) for the past 100 years, and previous dredging permits have been authorized for five-year periods. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Kansas City District has determined that substantial river bed degradation has occurred in portions of the LOMR and that the reaches of the river most degraded coincide with areas where commercial sand and gravel dredging has been greatest. Key issues identified during scoping include: the geomorphology of the river, including bed degradation and changes in water surface levels; effects of geomorphology on infrastructure and water supplies; economic effects of changing costs for commercial sand and gravel; impacts on the ecosystem and protected species; and recreation. The proposed action is: reauthorization by the USACE of eight existing dredging permits to six applicants; authorization of three additional proposed dredging permits; and authorization of any as yet unforeseen proposed dredging permits. Together, the dredgers propose being permitted to dredge up to 11.6 million tons of sand and gravel from the LOMR annually. Average annual dredging from the LOMR from 2004 to 2008 was 6.9 million tons. Two of the applicants propose constructing onshore sand plants to support the proposed dredging operations. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, current commercial dredging permits would expire on the extended expiration date of March 31, 2011. Alternatives A, B, and C would set allowable commercial dredging at 2.2 million tons per year, 5.1 million tons per year, and 6.9 million tons per year, respectively. The environmentally preferred alternative is a composite alternative that would include implementation of Alternative B on the St. Joseph and Waverly segments, Alternative C on the Jefferson City and St. Charles segments, and Alternative A on the Kansas City segment. The total allowable combined dredging amount would be 5.8 million tons per year. As part of the environmentally preferred alternative, it is recommended that low flow water surface elevation data should be collected every year and hydroacoustic bed elevation data surveys should be conducted every five years for the lower 498 miles of the LOMR. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continued commercial dredging would provide the essential sand and gravel components of construction materials, which are integral to the economy of the region that encompasses St. Joseph, greater Kansas City, central Missouri, and greater St. Louis. Implementation of the environmentally preferred alternative should balance the various public interests, including the need for aggregate and the need for a stable river system providing other services including water supply. The allowable levels of dredging with associated restrictions are anticipated to result in no more than slight river bed degradation in the near term and long term. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approval of dredging activities as proposed would likely result in continued, and in some cases substantial, river bed degradation with consequent changes in water surface elevations in the LOMR, including portions of the river at Kansas City, Jefferson City, and St. Charles. Dredging activities would have direct impact on aquatic habitat and benthic substrate. Increased injury or mortality to pallid sturgeon eggs, larvae, or juveniles could occur. Denial of all permit applications would likely result in negative socioeconomic impacts to communities along the river. Under the more restrictive alternatives, production of sand and gravel from alternate sources would need to increase in order to offset the reduced supplies from the LOMR. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0567D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110050, Final EIS--1,372 pages and maps, Appendices--343 pages, February 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 22 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Noise Standards KW - Rivers KW - Sand KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality KW - Missouri KW - Missouri River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132644?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Kansas City, Missouri; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. [Part 21 of 44] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 873132634; 14806-0_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permits for commercial dredging of sand and gravel from approximately 390 miles of the Missouri River that extends from its confluence with the Mississippi River to near Rulo, Nebraska is proposed. Dredging activities have occurred on the lower Missouri River (LOMR) for the past 100 years, and previous dredging permits have been authorized for five-year periods. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Kansas City District has determined that substantial river bed degradation has occurred in portions of the LOMR and that the reaches of the river most degraded coincide with areas where commercial sand and gravel dredging has been greatest. Key issues identified during scoping include: the geomorphology of the river, including bed degradation and changes in water surface levels; effects of geomorphology on infrastructure and water supplies; economic effects of changing costs for commercial sand and gravel; impacts on the ecosystem and protected species; and recreation. The proposed action is: reauthorization by the USACE of eight existing dredging permits to six applicants; authorization of three additional proposed dredging permits; and authorization of any as yet unforeseen proposed dredging permits. Together, the dredgers propose being permitted to dredge up to 11.6 million tons of sand and gravel from the LOMR annually. Average annual dredging from the LOMR from 2004 to 2008 was 6.9 million tons. Two of the applicants propose constructing onshore sand plants to support the proposed dredging operations. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, current commercial dredging permits would expire on the extended expiration date of March 31, 2011. Alternatives A, B, and C would set allowable commercial dredging at 2.2 million tons per year, 5.1 million tons per year, and 6.9 million tons per year, respectively. The environmentally preferred alternative is a composite alternative that would include implementation of Alternative B on the St. Joseph and Waverly segments, Alternative C on the Jefferson City and St. Charles segments, and Alternative A on the Kansas City segment. The total allowable combined dredging amount would be 5.8 million tons per year. As part of the environmentally preferred alternative, it is recommended that low flow water surface elevation data should be collected every year and hydroacoustic bed elevation data surveys should be conducted every five years for the lower 498 miles of the LOMR. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continued commercial dredging would provide the essential sand and gravel components of construction materials, which are integral to the economy of the region that encompasses St. Joseph, greater Kansas City, central Missouri, and greater St. Louis. Implementation of the environmentally preferred alternative should balance the various public interests, including the need for aggregate and the need for a stable river system providing other services including water supply. The allowable levels of dredging with associated restrictions are anticipated to result in no more than slight river bed degradation in the near term and long term. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approval of dredging activities as proposed would likely result in continued, and in some cases substantial, river bed degradation with consequent changes in water surface elevations in the LOMR, including portions of the river at Kansas City, Jefferson City, and St. Charles. Dredging activities would have direct impact on aquatic habitat and benthic substrate. Increased injury or mortality to pallid sturgeon eggs, larvae, or juveniles could occur. Denial of all permit applications would likely result in negative socioeconomic impacts to communities along the river. Under the more restrictive alternatives, production of sand and gravel from alternate sources would need to increase in order to offset the reduced supplies from the LOMR. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0567D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110050, Final EIS--1,372 pages and maps, Appendices--343 pages, February 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 21 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Noise Standards KW - Rivers KW - Sand KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality KW - Missouri KW - Missouri River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132634?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Kansas City, Missouri; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. [Part 20 of 44] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 873132630; 14806-0_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permits for commercial dredging of sand and gravel from approximately 390 miles of the Missouri River that extends from its confluence with the Mississippi River to near Rulo, Nebraska is proposed. Dredging activities have occurred on the lower Missouri River (LOMR) for the past 100 years, and previous dredging permits have been authorized for five-year periods. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Kansas City District has determined that substantial river bed degradation has occurred in portions of the LOMR and that the reaches of the river most degraded coincide with areas where commercial sand and gravel dredging has been greatest. Key issues identified during scoping include: the geomorphology of the river, including bed degradation and changes in water surface levels; effects of geomorphology on infrastructure and water supplies; economic effects of changing costs for commercial sand and gravel; impacts on the ecosystem and protected species; and recreation. The proposed action is: reauthorization by the USACE of eight existing dredging permits to six applicants; authorization of three additional proposed dredging permits; and authorization of any as yet unforeseen proposed dredging permits. Together, the dredgers propose being permitted to dredge up to 11.6 million tons of sand and gravel from the LOMR annually. Average annual dredging from the LOMR from 2004 to 2008 was 6.9 million tons. Two of the applicants propose constructing onshore sand plants to support the proposed dredging operations. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, current commercial dredging permits would expire on the extended expiration date of March 31, 2011. Alternatives A, B, and C would set allowable commercial dredging at 2.2 million tons per year, 5.1 million tons per year, and 6.9 million tons per year, respectively. The environmentally preferred alternative is a composite alternative that would include implementation of Alternative B on the St. Joseph and Waverly segments, Alternative C on the Jefferson City and St. Charles segments, and Alternative A on the Kansas City segment. The total allowable combined dredging amount would be 5.8 million tons per year. As part of the environmentally preferred alternative, it is recommended that low flow water surface elevation data should be collected every year and hydroacoustic bed elevation data surveys should be conducted every five years for the lower 498 miles of the LOMR. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continued commercial dredging would provide the essential sand and gravel components of construction materials, which are integral to the economy of the region that encompasses St. Joseph, greater Kansas City, central Missouri, and greater St. Louis. Implementation of the environmentally preferred alternative should balance the various public interests, including the need for aggregate and the need for a stable river system providing other services including water supply. The allowable levels of dredging with associated restrictions are anticipated to result in no more than slight river bed degradation in the near term and long term. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approval of dredging activities as proposed would likely result in continued, and in some cases substantial, river bed degradation with consequent changes in water surface elevations in the LOMR, including portions of the river at Kansas City, Jefferson City, and St. Charles. Dredging activities would have direct impact on aquatic habitat and benthic substrate. Increased injury or mortality to pallid sturgeon eggs, larvae, or juveniles could occur. Denial of all permit applications would likely result in negative socioeconomic impacts to communities along the river. Under the more restrictive alternatives, production of sand and gravel from alternate sources would need to increase in order to offset the reduced supplies from the LOMR. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0567D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110050, Final EIS--1,372 pages and maps, Appendices--343 pages, February 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 20 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Noise Standards KW - Rivers KW - Sand KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality KW - Missouri KW - Missouri River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132630?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Kansas City, Missouri; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. [Part 32 of 44] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 873131992; 14806-0_0032 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permits for commercial dredging of sand and gravel from approximately 390 miles of the Missouri River that extends from its confluence with the Mississippi River to near Rulo, Nebraska is proposed. Dredging activities have occurred on the lower Missouri River (LOMR) for the past 100 years, and previous dredging permits have been authorized for five-year periods. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Kansas City District has determined that substantial river bed degradation has occurred in portions of the LOMR and that the reaches of the river most degraded coincide with areas where commercial sand and gravel dredging has been greatest. Key issues identified during scoping include: the geomorphology of the river, including bed degradation and changes in water surface levels; effects of geomorphology on infrastructure and water supplies; economic effects of changing costs for commercial sand and gravel; impacts on the ecosystem and protected species; and recreation. The proposed action is: reauthorization by the USACE of eight existing dredging permits to six applicants; authorization of three additional proposed dredging permits; and authorization of any as yet unforeseen proposed dredging permits. Together, the dredgers propose being permitted to dredge up to 11.6 million tons of sand and gravel from the LOMR annually. Average annual dredging from the LOMR from 2004 to 2008 was 6.9 million tons. Two of the applicants propose constructing onshore sand plants to support the proposed dredging operations. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, current commercial dredging permits would expire on the extended expiration date of March 31, 2011. Alternatives A, B, and C would set allowable commercial dredging at 2.2 million tons per year, 5.1 million tons per year, and 6.9 million tons per year, respectively. The environmentally preferred alternative is a composite alternative that would include implementation of Alternative B on the St. Joseph and Waverly segments, Alternative C on the Jefferson City and St. Charles segments, and Alternative A on the Kansas City segment. The total allowable combined dredging amount would be 5.8 million tons per year. As part of the environmentally preferred alternative, it is recommended that low flow water surface elevation data should be collected every year and hydroacoustic bed elevation data surveys should be conducted every five years for the lower 498 miles of the LOMR. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continued commercial dredging would provide the essential sand and gravel components of construction materials, which are integral to the economy of the region that encompasses St. Joseph, greater Kansas City, central Missouri, and greater St. Louis. Implementation of the environmentally preferred alternative should balance the various public interests, including the need for aggregate and the need for a stable river system providing other services including water supply. The allowable levels of dredging with associated restrictions are anticipated to result in no more than slight river bed degradation in the near term and long term. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approval of dredging activities as proposed would likely result in continued, and in some cases substantial, river bed degradation with consequent changes in water surface elevations in the LOMR, including portions of the river at Kansas City, Jefferson City, and St. Charles. Dredging activities would have direct impact on aquatic habitat and benthic substrate. Increased injury or mortality to pallid sturgeon eggs, larvae, or juveniles could occur. Denial of all permit applications would likely result in negative socioeconomic impacts to communities along the river. Under the more restrictive alternatives, production of sand and gravel from alternate sources would need to increase in order to offset the reduced supplies from the LOMR. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0567D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110050, Final EIS--1,372 pages and maps, Appendices--343 pages, February 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 32 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Noise Standards KW - Rivers KW - Sand KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality KW - Missouri KW - Missouri River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131992?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Kansas City, Missouri; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. [Part 31 of 44] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 873131983; 14806-0_0031 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permits for commercial dredging of sand and gravel from approximately 390 miles of the Missouri River that extends from its confluence with the Mississippi River to near Rulo, Nebraska is proposed. Dredging activities have occurred on the lower Missouri River (LOMR) for the past 100 years, and previous dredging permits have been authorized for five-year periods. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Kansas City District has determined that substantial river bed degradation has occurred in portions of the LOMR and that the reaches of the river most degraded coincide with areas where commercial sand and gravel dredging has been greatest. Key issues identified during scoping include: the geomorphology of the river, including bed degradation and changes in water surface levels; effects of geomorphology on infrastructure and water supplies; economic effects of changing costs for commercial sand and gravel; impacts on the ecosystem and protected species; and recreation. The proposed action is: reauthorization by the USACE of eight existing dredging permits to six applicants; authorization of three additional proposed dredging permits; and authorization of any as yet unforeseen proposed dredging permits. Together, the dredgers propose being permitted to dredge up to 11.6 million tons of sand and gravel from the LOMR annually. Average annual dredging from the LOMR from 2004 to 2008 was 6.9 million tons. Two of the applicants propose constructing onshore sand plants to support the proposed dredging operations. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, current commercial dredging permits would expire on the extended expiration date of March 31, 2011. Alternatives A, B, and C would set allowable commercial dredging at 2.2 million tons per year, 5.1 million tons per year, and 6.9 million tons per year, respectively. The environmentally preferred alternative is a composite alternative that would include implementation of Alternative B on the St. Joseph and Waverly segments, Alternative C on the Jefferson City and St. Charles segments, and Alternative A on the Kansas City segment. The total allowable combined dredging amount would be 5.8 million tons per year. As part of the environmentally preferred alternative, it is recommended that low flow water surface elevation data should be collected every year and hydroacoustic bed elevation data surveys should be conducted every five years for the lower 498 miles of the LOMR. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continued commercial dredging would provide the essential sand and gravel components of construction materials, which are integral to the economy of the region that encompasses St. Joseph, greater Kansas City, central Missouri, and greater St. Louis. Implementation of the environmentally preferred alternative should balance the various public interests, including the need for aggregate and the need for a stable river system providing other services including water supply. The allowable levels of dredging with associated restrictions are anticipated to result in no more than slight river bed degradation in the near term and long term. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approval of dredging activities as proposed would likely result in continued, and in some cases substantial, river bed degradation with consequent changes in water surface elevations in the LOMR, including portions of the river at Kansas City, Jefferson City, and St. Charles. Dredging activities would have direct impact on aquatic habitat and benthic substrate. Increased injury or mortality to pallid sturgeon eggs, larvae, or juveniles could occur. Denial of all permit applications would likely result in negative socioeconomic impacts to communities along the river. Under the more restrictive alternatives, production of sand and gravel from alternate sources would need to increase in order to offset the reduced supplies from the LOMR. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0567D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110050, Final EIS--1,372 pages and maps, Appendices--343 pages, February 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 31 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Noise Standards KW - Rivers KW - Sand KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality KW - Missouri KW - Missouri River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131983?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Kansas City, Missouri; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. [Part 38 of 44] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 873131673; 14806-0_0038 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permits for commercial dredging of sand and gravel from approximately 390 miles of the Missouri River that extends from its confluence with the Mississippi River to near Rulo, Nebraska is proposed. Dredging activities have occurred on the lower Missouri River (LOMR) for the past 100 years, and previous dredging permits have been authorized for five-year periods. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Kansas City District has determined that substantial river bed degradation has occurred in portions of the LOMR and that the reaches of the river most degraded coincide with areas where commercial sand and gravel dredging has been greatest. Key issues identified during scoping include: the geomorphology of the river, including bed degradation and changes in water surface levels; effects of geomorphology on infrastructure and water supplies; economic effects of changing costs for commercial sand and gravel; impacts on the ecosystem and protected species; and recreation. The proposed action is: reauthorization by the USACE of eight existing dredging permits to six applicants; authorization of three additional proposed dredging permits; and authorization of any as yet unforeseen proposed dredging permits. Together, the dredgers propose being permitted to dredge up to 11.6 million tons of sand and gravel from the LOMR annually. Average annual dredging from the LOMR from 2004 to 2008 was 6.9 million tons. Two of the applicants propose constructing onshore sand plants to support the proposed dredging operations. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, current commercial dredging permits would expire on the extended expiration date of March 31, 2011. Alternatives A, B, and C would set allowable commercial dredging at 2.2 million tons per year, 5.1 million tons per year, and 6.9 million tons per year, respectively. The environmentally preferred alternative is a composite alternative that would include implementation of Alternative B on the St. Joseph and Waverly segments, Alternative C on the Jefferson City and St. Charles segments, and Alternative A on the Kansas City segment. The total allowable combined dredging amount would be 5.8 million tons per year. As part of the environmentally preferred alternative, it is recommended that low flow water surface elevation data should be collected every year and hydroacoustic bed elevation data surveys should be conducted every five years for the lower 498 miles of the LOMR. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continued commercial dredging would provide the essential sand and gravel components of construction materials, which are integral to the economy of the region that encompasses St. Joseph, greater Kansas City, central Missouri, and greater St. Louis. Implementation of the environmentally preferred alternative should balance the various public interests, including the need for aggregate and the need for a stable river system providing other services including water supply. The allowable levels of dredging with associated restrictions are anticipated to result in no more than slight river bed degradation in the near term and long term. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approval of dredging activities as proposed would likely result in continued, and in some cases substantial, river bed degradation with consequent changes in water surface elevations in the LOMR, including portions of the river at Kansas City, Jefferson City, and St. Charles. Dredging activities would have direct impact on aquatic habitat and benthic substrate. Increased injury or mortality to pallid sturgeon eggs, larvae, or juveniles could occur. Denial of all permit applications would likely result in negative socioeconomic impacts to communities along the river. Under the more restrictive alternatives, production of sand and gravel from alternate sources would need to increase in order to offset the reduced supplies from the LOMR. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0567D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110050, Final EIS--1,372 pages and maps, Appendices--343 pages, February 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 38 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Noise Standards KW - Rivers KW - Sand KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality KW - Missouri KW - Missouri River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131673?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Kansas City, Missouri; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. [Part 34 of 44] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 873131661; 14806-0_0034 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permits for commercial dredging of sand and gravel from approximately 390 miles of the Missouri River that extends from its confluence with the Mississippi River to near Rulo, Nebraska is proposed. Dredging activities have occurred on the lower Missouri River (LOMR) for the past 100 years, and previous dredging permits have been authorized for five-year periods. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Kansas City District has determined that substantial river bed degradation has occurred in portions of the LOMR and that the reaches of the river most degraded coincide with areas where commercial sand and gravel dredging has been greatest. Key issues identified during scoping include: the geomorphology of the river, including bed degradation and changes in water surface levels; effects of geomorphology on infrastructure and water supplies; economic effects of changing costs for commercial sand and gravel; impacts on the ecosystem and protected species; and recreation. The proposed action is: reauthorization by the USACE of eight existing dredging permits to six applicants; authorization of three additional proposed dredging permits; and authorization of any as yet unforeseen proposed dredging permits. Together, the dredgers propose being permitted to dredge up to 11.6 million tons of sand and gravel from the LOMR annually. Average annual dredging from the LOMR from 2004 to 2008 was 6.9 million tons. Two of the applicants propose constructing onshore sand plants to support the proposed dredging operations. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, current commercial dredging permits would expire on the extended expiration date of March 31, 2011. Alternatives A, B, and C would set allowable commercial dredging at 2.2 million tons per year, 5.1 million tons per year, and 6.9 million tons per year, respectively. The environmentally preferred alternative is a composite alternative that would include implementation of Alternative B on the St. Joseph and Waverly segments, Alternative C on the Jefferson City and St. Charles segments, and Alternative A on the Kansas City segment. The total allowable combined dredging amount would be 5.8 million tons per year. As part of the environmentally preferred alternative, it is recommended that low flow water surface elevation data should be collected every year and hydroacoustic bed elevation data surveys should be conducted every five years for the lower 498 miles of the LOMR. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continued commercial dredging would provide the essential sand and gravel components of construction materials, which are integral to the economy of the region that encompasses St. Joseph, greater Kansas City, central Missouri, and greater St. Louis. Implementation of the environmentally preferred alternative should balance the various public interests, including the need for aggregate and the need for a stable river system providing other services including water supply. The allowable levels of dredging with associated restrictions are anticipated to result in no more than slight river bed degradation in the near term and long term. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approval of dredging activities as proposed would likely result in continued, and in some cases substantial, river bed degradation with consequent changes in water surface elevations in the LOMR, including portions of the river at Kansas City, Jefferson City, and St. Charles. Dredging activities would have direct impact on aquatic habitat and benthic substrate. Increased injury or mortality to pallid sturgeon eggs, larvae, or juveniles could occur. Denial of all permit applications would likely result in negative socioeconomic impacts to communities along the river. Under the more restrictive alternatives, production of sand and gravel from alternate sources would need to increase in order to offset the reduced supplies from the LOMR. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0567D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110050, Final EIS--1,372 pages and maps, Appendices--343 pages, February 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 34 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Noise Standards KW - Rivers KW - Sand KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality KW - Missouri KW - Missouri River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131661?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Kansas City, Missouri; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. [Part 33 of 44] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 873131650; 14806-0_0033 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permits for commercial dredging of sand and gravel from approximately 390 miles of the Missouri River that extends from its confluence with the Mississippi River to near Rulo, Nebraska is proposed. Dredging activities have occurred on the lower Missouri River (LOMR) for the past 100 years, and previous dredging permits have been authorized for five-year periods. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Kansas City District has determined that substantial river bed degradation has occurred in portions of the LOMR and that the reaches of the river most degraded coincide with areas where commercial sand and gravel dredging has been greatest. Key issues identified during scoping include: the geomorphology of the river, including bed degradation and changes in water surface levels; effects of geomorphology on infrastructure and water supplies; economic effects of changing costs for commercial sand and gravel; impacts on the ecosystem and protected species; and recreation. The proposed action is: reauthorization by the USACE of eight existing dredging permits to six applicants; authorization of three additional proposed dredging permits; and authorization of any as yet unforeseen proposed dredging permits. Together, the dredgers propose being permitted to dredge up to 11.6 million tons of sand and gravel from the LOMR annually. Average annual dredging from the LOMR from 2004 to 2008 was 6.9 million tons. Two of the applicants propose constructing onshore sand plants to support the proposed dredging operations. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, current commercial dredging permits would expire on the extended expiration date of March 31, 2011. Alternatives A, B, and C would set allowable commercial dredging at 2.2 million tons per year, 5.1 million tons per year, and 6.9 million tons per year, respectively. The environmentally preferred alternative is a composite alternative that would include implementation of Alternative B on the St. Joseph and Waverly segments, Alternative C on the Jefferson City and St. Charles segments, and Alternative A on the Kansas City segment. The total allowable combined dredging amount would be 5.8 million tons per year. As part of the environmentally preferred alternative, it is recommended that low flow water surface elevation data should be collected every year and hydroacoustic bed elevation data surveys should be conducted every five years for the lower 498 miles of the LOMR. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continued commercial dredging would provide the essential sand and gravel components of construction materials, which are integral to the economy of the region that encompasses St. Joseph, greater Kansas City, central Missouri, and greater St. Louis. Implementation of the environmentally preferred alternative should balance the various public interests, including the need for aggregate and the need for a stable river system providing other services including water supply. The allowable levels of dredging with associated restrictions are anticipated to result in no more than slight river bed degradation in the near term and long term. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approval of dredging activities as proposed would likely result in continued, and in some cases substantial, river bed degradation with consequent changes in water surface elevations in the LOMR, including portions of the river at Kansas City, Jefferson City, and St. Charles. Dredging activities would have direct impact on aquatic habitat and benthic substrate. Increased injury or mortality to pallid sturgeon eggs, larvae, or juveniles could occur. Denial of all permit applications would likely result in negative socioeconomic impacts to communities along the river. Under the more restrictive alternatives, production of sand and gravel from alternate sources would need to increase in order to offset the reduced supplies from the LOMR. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0567D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110050, Final EIS--1,372 pages and maps, Appendices--343 pages, February 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 33 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Noise Standards KW - Rivers KW - Sand KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality KW - Missouri KW - Missouri River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131650?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Kansas City, Missouri; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. [Part 5 of 44] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 873131375; 14806-0_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permits for commercial dredging of sand and gravel from approximately 390 miles of the Missouri River that extends from its confluence with the Mississippi River to near Rulo, Nebraska is proposed. Dredging activities have occurred on the lower Missouri River (LOMR) for the past 100 years, and previous dredging permits have been authorized for five-year periods. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Kansas City District has determined that substantial river bed degradation has occurred in portions of the LOMR and that the reaches of the river most degraded coincide with areas where commercial sand and gravel dredging has been greatest. Key issues identified during scoping include: the geomorphology of the river, including bed degradation and changes in water surface levels; effects of geomorphology on infrastructure and water supplies; economic effects of changing costs for commercial sand and gravel; impacts on the ecosystem and protected species; and recreation. The proposed action is: reauthorization by the USACE of eight existing dredging permits to six applicants; authorization of three additional proposed dredging permits; and authorization of any as yet unforeseen proposed dredging permits. Together, the dredgers propose being permitted to dredge up to 11.6 million tons of sand and gravel from the LOMR annually. Average annual dredging from the LOMR from 2004 to 2008 was 6.9 million tons. Two of the applicants propose constructing onshore sand plants to support the proposed dredging operations. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, current commercial dredging permits would expire on the extended expiration date of March 31, 2011. Alternatives A, B, and C would set allowable commercial dredging at 2.2 million tons per year, 5.1 million tons per year, and 6.9 million tons per year, respectively. The environmentally preferred alternative is a composite alternative that would include implementation of Alternative B on the St. Joseph and Waverly segments, Alternative C on the Jefferson City and St. Charles segments, and Alternative A on the Kansas City segment. The total allowable combined dredging amount would be 5.8 million tons per year. As part of the environmentally preferred alternative, it is recommended that low flow water surface elevation data should be collected every year and hydroacoustic bed elevation data surveys should be conducted every five years for the lower 498 miles of the LOMR. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continued commercial dredging would provide the essential sand and gravel components of construction materials, which are integral to the economy of the region that encompasses St. Joseph, greater Kansas City, central Missouri, and greater St. Louis. Implementation of the environmentally preferred alternative should balance the various public interests, including the need for aggregate and the need for a stable river system providing other services including water supply. The allowable levels of dredging with associated restrictions are anticipated to result in no more than slight river bed degradation in the near term and long term. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approval of dredging activities as proposed would likely result in continued, and in some cases substantial, river bed degradation with consequent changes in water surface elevations in the LOMR, including portions of the river at Kansas City, Jefferson City, and St. Charles. Dredging activities would have direct impact on aquatic habitat and benthic substrate. Increased injury or mortality to pallid sturgeon eggs, larvae, or juveniles could occur. Denial of all permit applications would likely result in negative socioeconomic impacts to communities along the river. Under the more restrictive alternatives, production of sand and gravel from alternate sources would need to increase in order to offset the reduced supplies from the LOMR. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0567D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110050, Final EIS--1,372 pages and maps, Appendices--343 pages, February 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Noise Standards KW - Rivers KW - Sand KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality KW - Missouri KW - Missouri River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131375?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Kansas City, Missouri; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. [Part 4 of 44] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 873131360; 14806-0_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permits for commercial dredging of sand and gravel from approximately 390 miles of the Missouri River that extends from its confluence with the Mississippi River to near Rulo, Nebraska is proposed. Dredging activities have occurred on the lower Missouri River (LOMR) for the past 100 years, and previous dredging permits have been authorized for five-year periods. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Kansas City District has determined that substantial river bed degradation has occurred in portions of the LOMR and that the reaches of the river most degraded coincide with areas where commercial sand and gravel dredging has been greatest. Key issues identified during scoping include: the geomorphology of the river, including bed degradation and changes in water surface levels; effects of geomorphology on infrastructure and water supplies; economic effects of changing costs for commercial sand and gravel; impacts on the ecosystem and protected species; and recreation. The proposed action is: reauthorization by the USACE of eight existing dredging permits to six applicants; authorization of three additional proposed dredging permits; and authorization of any as yet unforeseen proposed dredging permits. Together, the dredgers propose being permitted to dredge up to 11.6 million tons of sand and gravel from the LOMR annually. Average annual dredging from the LOMR from 2004 to 2008 was 6.9 million tons. Two of the applicants propose constructing onshore sand plants to support the proposed dredging operations. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, current commercial dredging permits would expire on the extended expiration date of March 31, 2011. Alternatives A, B, and C would set allowable commercial dredging at 2.2 million tons per year, 5.1 million tons per year, and 6.9 million tons per year, respectively. The environmentally preferred alternative is a composite alternative that would include implementation of Alternative B on the St. Joseph and Waverly segments, Alternative C on the Jefferson City and St. Charles segments, and Alternative A on the Kansas City segment. The total allowable combined dredging amount would be 5.8 million tons per year. As part of the environmentally preferred alternative, it is recommended that low flow water surface elevation data should be collected every year and hydroacoustic bed elevation data surveys should be conducted every five years for the lower 498 miles of the LOMR. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continued commercial dredging would provide the essential sand and gravel components of construction materials, which are integral to the economy of the region that encompasses St. Joseph, greater Kansas City, central Missouri, and greater St. Louis. Implementation of the environmentally preferred alternative should balance the various public interests, including the need for aggregate and the need for a stable river system providing other services including water supply. The allowable levels of dredging with associated restrictions are anticipated to result in no more than slight river bed degradation in the near term and long term. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approval of dredging activities as proposed would likely result in continued, and in some cases substantial, river bed degradation with consequent changes in water surface elevations in the LOMR, including portions of the river at Kansas City, Jefferson City, and St. Charles. Dredging activities would have direct impact on aquatic habitat and benthic substrate. Increased injury or mortality to pallid sturgeon eggs, larvae, or juveniles could occur. Denial of all permit applications would likely result in negative socioeconomic impacts to communities along the river. Under the more restrictive alternatives, production of sand and gravel from alternate sources would need to increase in order to offset the reduced supplies from the LOMR. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0567D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110050, Final EIS--1,372 pages and maps, Appendices--343 pages, February 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Noise Standards KW - Rivers KW - Sand KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality KW - Missouri KW - Missouri River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131360?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Kansas City, Missouri; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. [Part 3 of 44] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 873131346; 14806-0_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permits for commercial dredging of sand and gravel from approximately 390 miles of the Missouri River that extends from its confluence with the Mississippi River to near Rulo, Nebraska is proposed. Dredging activities have occurred on the lower Missouri River (LOMR) for the past 100 years, and previous dredging permits have been authorized for five-year periods. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Kansas City District has determined that substantial river bed degradation has occurred in portions of the LOMR and that the reaches of the river most degraded coincide with areas where commercial sand and gravel dredging has been greatest. Key issues identified during scoping include: the geomorphology of the river, including bed degradation and changes in water surface levels; effects of geomorphology on infrastructure and water supplies; economic effects of changing costs for commercial sand and gravel; impacts on the ecosystem and protected species; and recreation. The proposed action is: reauthorization by the USACE of eight existing dredging permits to six applicants; authorization of three additional proposed dredging permits; and authorization of any as yet unforeseen proposed dredging permits. Together, the dredgers propose being permitted to dredge up to 11.6 million tons of sand and gravel from the LOMR annually. Average annual dredging from the LOMR from 2004 to 2008 was 6.9 million tons. Two of the applicants propose constructing onshore sand plants to support the proposed dredging operations. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, current commercial dredging permits would expire on the extended expiration date of March 31, 2011. Alternatives A, B, and C would set allowable commercial dredging at 2.2 million tons per year, 5.1 million tons per year, and 6.9 million tons per year, respectively. The environmentally preferred alternative is a composite alternative that would include implementation of Alternative B on the St. Joseph and Waverly segments, Alternative C on the Jefferson City and St. Charles segments, and Alternative A on the Kansas City segment. The total allowable combined dredging amount would be 5.8 million tons per year. As part of the environmentally preferred alternative, it is recommended that low flow water surface elevation data should be collected every year and hydroacoustic bed elevation data surveys should be conducted every five years for the lower 498 miles of the LOMR. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continued commercial dredging would provide the essential sand and gravel components of construction materials, which are integral to the economy of the region that encompasses St. Joseph, greater Kansas City, central Missouri, and greater St. Louis. Implementation of the environmentally preferred alternative should balance the various public interests, including the need for aggregate and the need for a stable river system providing other services including water supply. The allowable levels of dredging with associated restrictions are anticipated to result in no more than slight river bed degradation in the near term and long term. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approval of dredging activities as proposed would likely result in continued, and in some cases substantial, river bed degradation with consequent changes in water surface elevations in the LOMR, including portions of the river at Kansas City, Jefferson City, and St. Charles. Dredging activities would have direct impact on aquatic habitat and benthic substrate. Increased injury or mortality to pallid sturgeon eggs, larvae, or juveniles could occur. Denial of all permit applications would likely result in negative socioeconomic impacts to communities along the river. Under the more restrictive alternatives, production of sand and gravel from alternate sources would need to increase in order to offset the reduced supplies from the LOMR. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0567D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110050, Final EIS--1,372 pages and maps, Appendices--343 pages, February 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Noise Standards KW - Rivers KW - Sand KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality KW - Missouri KW - Missouri River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131346?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Kansas City, Missouri; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. [Part 2 of 44] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 873131337; 14806-0_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permits for commercial dredging of sand and gravel from approximately 390 miles of the Missouri River that extends from its confluence with the Mississippi River to near Rulo, Nebraska is proposed. Dredging activities have occurred on the lower Missouri River (LOMR) for the past 100 years, and previous dredging permits have been authorized for five-year periods. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Kansas City District has determined that substantial river bed degradation has occurred in portions of the LOMR and that the reaches of the river most degraded coincide with areas where commercial sand and gravel dredging has been greatest. Key issues identified during scoping include: the geomorphology of the river, including bed degradation and changes in water surface levels; effects of geomorphology on infrastructure and water supplies; economic effects of changing costs for commercial sand and gravel; impacts on the ecosystem and protected species; and recreation. The proposed action is: reauthorization by the USACE of eight existing dredging permits to six applicants; authorization of three additional proposed dredging permits; and authorization of any as yet unforeseen proposed dredging permits. Together, the dredgers propose being permitted to dredge up to 11.6 million tons of sand and gravel from the LOMR annually. Average annual dredging from the LOMR from 2004 to 2008 was 6.9 million tons. Two of the applicants propose constructing onshore sand plants to support the proposed dredging operations. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, current commercial dredging permits would expire on the extended expiration date of March 31, 2011. Alternatives A, B, and C would set allowable commercial dredging at 2.2 million tons per year, 5.1 million tons per year, and 6.9 million tons per year, respectively. The environmentally preferred alternative is a composite alternative that would include implementation of Alternative B on the St. Joseph and Waverly segments, Alternative C on the Jefferson City and St. Charles segments, and Alternative A on the Kansas City segment. The total allowable combined dredging amount would be 5.8 million tons per year. As part of the environmentally preferred alternative, it is recommended that low flow water surface elevation data should be collected every year and hydroacoustic bed elevation data surveys should be conducted every five years for the lower 498 miles of the LOMR. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continued commercial dredging would provide the essential sand and gravel components of construction materials, which are integral to the economy of the region that encompasses St. Joseph, greater Kansas City, central Missouri, and greater St. Louis. Implementation of the environmentally preferred alternative should balance the various public interests, including the need for aggregate and the need for a stable river system providing other services including water supply. The allowable levels of dredging with associated restrictions are anticipated to result in no more than slight river bed degradation in the near term and long term. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approval of dredging activities as proposed would likely result in continued, and in some cases substantial, river bed degradation with consequent changes in water surface elevations in the LOMR, including portions of the river at Kansas City, Jefferson City, and St. Charles. Dredging activities would have direct impact on aquatic habitat and benthic substrate. Increased injury or mortality to pallid sturgeon eggs, larvae, or juveniles could occur. Denial of all permit applications would likely result in negative socioeconomic impacts to communities along the river. Under the more restrictive alternatives, production of sand and gravel from alternate sources would need to increase in order to offset the reduced supplies from the LOMR. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0567D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110050, Final EIS--1,372 pages and maps, Appendices--343 pages, February 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Noise Standards KW - Rivers KW - Sand KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality KW - Missouri KW - Missouri River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131337?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Kansas City, Missouri; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. [Part 44 of 44] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER COMMERCIAL DREDGING, KANSAS CITY, CENTRAL MISSOURI, AND GREATER ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 873131262; 14806-0_0044 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permits for commercial dredging of sand and gravel from approximately 390 miles of the Missouri River that extends from its confluence with the Mississippi River to near Rulo, Nebraska is proposed. Dredging activities have occurred on the lower Missouri River (LOMR) for the past 100 years, and previous dredging permits have been authorized for five-year periods. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Kansas City District has determined that substantial river bed degradation has occurred in portions of the LOMR and that the reaches of the river most degraded coincide with areas where commercial sand and gravel dredging has been greatest. Key issues identified during scoping include: the geomorphology of the river, including bed degradation and changes in water surface levels; effects of geomorphology on infrastructure and water supplies; economic effects of changing costs for commercial sand and gravel; impacts on the ecosystem and protected species; and recreation. The proposed action is: reauthorization by the USACE of eight existing dredging permits to six applicants; authorization of three additional proposed dredging permits; and authorization of any as yet unforeseen proposed dredging permits. Together, the dredgers propose being permitted to dredge up to 11.6 million tons of sand and gravel from the LOMR annually. Average annual dredging from the LOMR from 2004 to 2008 was 6.9 million tons. Two of the applicants propose constructing onshore sand plants to support the proposed dredging operations. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, current commercial dredging permits would expire on the extended expiration date of March 31, 2011. Alternatives A, B, and C would set allowable commercial dredging at 2.2 million tons per year, 5.1 million tons per year, and 6.9 million tons per year, respectively. The environmentally preferred alternative is a composite alternative that would include implementation of Alternative B on the St. Joseph and Waverly segments, Alternative C on the Jefferson City and St. Charles segments, and Alternative A on the Kansas City segment. The total allowable combined dredging amount would be 5.8 million tons per year. As part of the environmentally preferred alternative, it is recommended that low flow water surface elevation data should be collected every year and hydroacoustic bed elevation data surveys should be conducted every five years for the lower 498 miles of the LOMR. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continued commercial dredging would provide the essential sand and gravel components of construction materials, which are integral to the economy of the region that encompasses St. Joseph, greater Kansas City, central Missouri, and greater St. Louis. Implementation of the environmentally preferred alternative should balance the various public interests, including the need for aggregate and the need for a stable river system providing other services including water supply. The allowable levels of dredging with associated restrictions are anticipated to result in no more than slight river bed degradation in the near term and long term. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approval of dredging activities as proposed would likely result in continued, and in some cases substantial, river bed degradation with consequent changes in water surface elevations in the LOMR, including portions of the river at Kansas City, Jefferson City, and St. Charles. Dredging activities would have direct impact on aquatic habitat and benthic substrate. Increased injury or mortality to pallid sturgeon eggs, larvae, or juveniles could occur. Denial of all permit applications would likely result in negative socioeconomic impacts to communities along the river. Under the more restrictive alternatives, production of sand and gravel from alternate sources would need to increase in order to offset the reduced supplies from the LOMR. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0567D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110050, Final EIS--1,372 pages and maps, Appendices--343 pages, February 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 44 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Noise Standards KW - Rivers KW - Sand KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality KW - Missouri KW - Missouri River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131262?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=MISSOURI+RIVER+COMMERCIAL+DREDGING%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+CENTRAL+MISSOURI%2C+AND+GREATER+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Kansas City, Missouri; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OHIO RIVER MAINSTEM SYSTEMS STUDY, SYSTEM INVESTMENT PLAN, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, KENTUCKY, OHIO, PENNSYLVANIA, AND WEST VIRGINIA. AN - 16367523; 14809 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a system investment plan (SIP) for the 981-mile Ohio River in Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, and Pennsylvania is proposed to maintain safe, environmentally sustainable, and reliable navigation along the river from 2010 to 2070. The Ohio River mainstem is the principal artery of the Ohio River System (ORS), which also includes its navigable tributaries, the Allegheny, Monongahela, Kanawha, Big Sandy, Kentucky, Green, Tennessee, and Cumberland rivers. Users of the ORS ship 270 million tons of commodities worth over $30 billion annually, resulting in a transportation savings of $2.0 billion. The SIP addresses the operation and maintenance, rehabilitation, and construction reinvestment needs at the 19 navigation lock and dam sites on the mainstem. The SIP was developed to evaluate system-wide priorities and impacts; it does not recommend specific projects for authorization by Congress. A major focus is the comprehensive Cumulative Effects Assessment that evaluates impacts from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions falling into 10 categories of valued environmental components. For many of the recommended actions, future site-specific studies would be required prior to project approval or recommendation for authorization. Navigation investment alternatives were formulated based on five possible traffic forecast scenarios associated with utility coal, air quality compliance policy, and economic growth. Ecosystem sustainability alternatives were formulated from measures identified during facilitated group discussions that focused on the highest priority needs to enhance aquatic and riparian ecosystem sustainability. Navigation-related recommendations in the SIP would provide for a mix of investments ranging from reactive maintenance (replacement of lock components as failure occurred) through advance maintenance (replacement of lock components before failure) and major rehabilitation (bundling of multiple replacements into a rehabilitation component) to lock modernization (new lock chambers at Emsworth, Dashields, and Montgomery locks and dams on the upper Ohio River). Ecosystem-related recommendations would provide for the initiation of the previously authorized Ohio River Ecosystem Restoration Program and planning and implementation of additional measures to improve ecosystem sustainability in collaboration with other interests. In addition to the action alternatives, this final programmatic EIS considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred plan includes all features of the best navigation (National Economic Development Plan) and environmental sustainability (National Environmental Sustainability Plan) investment plans. Specific recommendations include: increased operation and maintenance investments to maximize economic efficiency; provision of optimal funding for the Upper Ohio River Study currently underway; initiation of main chamber rehabilitation studies for Meldahl, Hannibal, and Myers as soon as possible; initiation of main chamber rehabilitation study for Pike Island in the near term; completion of work on the Markland gates as soon as possible; and initiation of the Ohio River Basin Comprehensive Study. All detailed evaluation of site-specific impacts for follow on studies and other actions would be tiered from this SIP/programmatic EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The SIP would provide a balance between economic development and ecological preservation and enhancement along the river corridor. By maintaining a long-term comprehensive program for maintaining a viable navigation system on the main stem, the project would allow continued development of industries dependent on the ORS for transportation and continue to support substantial direct and indirect employment along the associated rivers. Locking delays expected due to increased traffic and inadequate and deteriorating infrastructure would be reduced or eliminated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All plans would have some degree of construction impacts and would affect fish spawning areas, mussel habitat, and riparian and floodplain resources, including wetlands and bottomland forest areas. Wildlife and fish habitat would be lost and habitat units available would decline somewhat. The operation of locks and dams would continue to alter river hydrology in both upstream and downstream reaches of the river. LEGAL MANDATES: Public Works Appropriations (P.L. 94-355) and River and Harbor Act of 1902. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0451D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110053, Final EIS--535 pages, Engineering and Economic Appendices--437 pages, Environmental Appendix Volume 1--762 pages, Environmental Appendix Volume 2--1,129 pages, February 25, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Water KW - Bank Protection KW - Barges KW - Dams KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Fish KW - Forests KW - Navigation KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Shellfish KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Illinois KW - Indiana KW - Kentucky KW - Ohio KW - Ohio River KW - Pennsylvania KW - West Virginia KW - Public Works Appropriations, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1902, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16367523?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OHIO+RIVER+MAINSTEM+SYSTEMS+STUDY%2C+SYSTEM+INVESTMENT+PLAN%2C+ILLINOIS%2C+INDIANA%2C+KENTUCKY%2C+OHIO%2C+PENNSYLVANIA%2C+AND+WEST+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=OHIO+RIVER+MAINSTEM+SYSTEMS+STUDY%2C+SYSTEM+INVESTMENT+PLAN%2C+ILLINOIS%2C+INDIANA%2C+KENTUCKY%2C+OHIO%2C+PENNSYLVANIA%2C+AND+WEST+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER -